A new take on why Spacetime expanded Originally - a way to a new kind of unification

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Aethelwulf, Aug 17, 2012.

Page 2 of 2
  1. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    A warning: Once I have confirmed that Aethelwulf is Reiku, this entire thread, along with all of Aethelwulf's posts to sciforums, will be deleted.
     
    James R, Aug 19, 2012
    #21

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    By the way, Reiku, I wonder whether you realise that there is a registered poster here who goes under the name Athelwulf. I imagine you are aware of that. It is deeply disrespectful to that poster for you to try to pass yourself off as him.
     
    James R, Aug 19, 2012
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    The loss would be incalculable, too small to detect.
     
    origin, Aug 19, 2012
    #23

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric

    AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Engineers and technicians aren't versed in the relevant physics, ie general relativity and quantum field theory. And managers certainly aren't. Finding laypersons to endorse quack ideas is easy. Even finding professionals is easy, look at all the doctors in the US who 'recommend' products because a drug company paid for a new car.

    So why all your "theoretical physicists waste their time" and string theory is shit comments? Suddenly changing your tune.

    I do believe I hear the sound of backpeddling.

    Just like religious people think it's 'mind blowing' that god exists but when asked to provide evidence they have none. You have none, both in terms of your physics claims and in terms of your religious beliefs.

    Clearly you get your views of the necessity for evidence, rationality and logic from your religious views.

    The level of my 'science constructiveness' isn't measured by my forum posts. I know yours is, hence why you persist in endlessly repeating this cycle and spamming your nonsense on other forums, but there are some people here who amount to a bit more than that. I come here for fun, not to get existential justification.
     
    AlphaNumeric, Aug 19, 2012
    #24
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page