Reply With Quote
Well, the theories you are questioning have more evidence than other theories. There's lots of holes to be poked in current theory, but it doesn't mean slot unless there's another theory to replace it.
I never said I knew any of this with certainty. I am disagreeing that others say they do!
Your questions take the topic of quantum physics three hundred years back.
Honestly, quit acting like you know anything with certainty, especially in the field of science. Science in general is based on asking the right questions. Your questions........ well I think I already pointed out what feasibility they have.
Look at my posts. Most are questions, aren't they?
Well, the theories you are questioning have more evidence than other theories. There's lots of holes to be poked in current theory, but it doesn't mean slot unless there's another theory to replace it.
WildCobra wins the prize for dumbest ing poster in ST history. Seriously this guy has to be a troll, nobody can be this stupid.
No no, he's totally real.
No way he's fake. No effing way. How could you fake that?
OTOH, I have always been a bit su ious at the degree of self-disclosure. So much damaging personal information delivered unbidden and completely gratuitously, on a public effing forum. Who would do that intentionally?
Again, I am not disputing the theory.
What ever you wish to believe. Glad I can entertain you.
No, you're just bringing up like light needing a medium and not understanding what a photon is.. You know, integral parts of the theory you are disputing.
I am a bit Fuzzy on string theory but isn't it that the strings vibrate at discrete values causing the discrete packes that are interpreted as particles. That the quanta properties of photons are based on the nature of the strings and not photons being particles?
I've said this repeatedly and I will say it again.
I'm not convinced WC knows what science is.
the ol' "how do you know that God doesn't exist" argument.
greatness.
WC was only asking a series of leading questions. How is that an argument?
If the universe is expanding, then what is it comprised of to be expanding?
Matter? Reality? That's a bit open-ended of a question.
Really?
Is it already infinite, or not? If not, what's on the other side when it ends?
How can something that is infinite expand? Who says there's another "side". You're incredibly unimaginative and that will limit you when discussing this.
Isn't that one of the things I was quizzing you know-it-alls earlier?
The answer I kept getting is the universe is expanding, rather than actual movement of galaxies.
My bringing up the other side was to illustrate if it isn't endless, what is there when it ends?
Did you really call someone - ANYONE - else a know it all?
ing really?
You realize they have measurement estimates for the universe, right? How would you measure something that was infinite? Obviously something isn't infinite can expand. You don't seem to be understanding some very simple ideas here.
Just because something isn't infinite doesn't mean it ends with a fixed boundary yet you keep coming back to this.
Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.
I hate to distract from the pile on WC thread, but there are actually different infinities that can be ordered... e.g.,
N0 = cardinality ("count") of the set of integers
c = cardinality of the set of reals
N2 = cardinality of the set of functions f: reals -> reals
and so on has N0 < c < N2 < ... in a very well-defined way. It was an extremely controversial (at the time) result found by Georg Cantor that helped drive him insane. If you're interested, the book Topology by James R. Munkres has probably the clearest explanation I have seen for it. Here's two videos that explain the concept as well:
The book used for the class above, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, is awesome too, but tries to be a little too slick and is neither as thorough nor as clear as Munkres' section on the subject in his Topology book.
And now back to the bickering...
What they are speaking of is what we know of as the known universe. There is only so far out we can see. Now I am confused with what others are implying myself. I think they are trying to explain extreme Doppler shifts the wrong way. The Doppler effect only works with a change in velocity. Now we know of different factors that change the speed of light, but that is changing densities. For a red shift without it being a Doppler effect would require that the speed of light be different in different locations in the universe. This is either achieved by extreme gravitation like a black hole or quasar, or that their is actually some kind of a "fabric" to space. This is why I scoffed at the quasar example, as they have extreme gravity and can change light frequency though what we might call time dilation.
If you have a theory that explains this red shift some other way, I'm open. No one here has explained it well, or I messed that post.
There is also so much about science we still don't know. The frequency spectra of atoms and molecules may also change from some yet unknown force.
Back to an earlier post. I keep asking question that no one here seems capable of answering, except to say it's accepted theory. How many theories throughout time have we disproved? Again, I am not saying the theory is wrong. Only that it's laughable so many accept it as fact.
I'm not sure if you wanted to get that out of your chest or what, but it didn't address the question I asked (and you quoted):
Also, I don't see the connection between expanding and having boundaries (or not). And how having boundaries and what they're made of have any significance with expansion.
Now, what you're being told and it seems to be over your head is that it's not being taken as a fact, but it's taken as the best theory at the current time. It takes a better theory to unsettle that one, or simply verification that the theory is indeed a fact. As you ask how many theories we've disproved through time, I have to ask you how many theories we've proven to be fact through time?
If you're going to dismiss the theory as just 'being a theory', then it's expected that you either 1) explain in detail why do you think the theory is flawed, and 2) propose a better theory that addresses those shortcomings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions