You are trolling again and acting like a bot again.
It is correct so go away.
Light, dark and clear
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
It is correct so go away.
back on ignore.
Hooray!
I hope it lasts longer than last time.
it is a logical impossibility for there to be no space pre-big bang.
What confinement? Where did a solvent and solution of electrolytes come from? Again, what int he world are you talking about?
no, space is NOT "full of clear"... space is full of dust and other various matter, but it is not "full of clear", because there is NO SUCH THING AS CLEAR.
Look at a goddamn periodic table... do you see the element "clear" listed there anywhere? Do you know of ANY combination of elements that can form the compound "clear"?
Again, all your nonsense has been discussed many times and all moved to the fringe sections.
You have been told this. According to the BB model, it was an evolution of space and time [as we know them] which by definition means there is no outside to expand into, no edges or center.
While admittedly on face value this seems counter intuitive, we have much evidence supporting that fact, and it is certainly far less counter intuitive than the nonsense you are trying to propose, without any evidence and is the reason why you have been banned from so many other forums.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and cosmology has shown we sometimes need to forget what we may think should be "logically intuitive" as is also evident with Einsteins SR/GR and the fact that time and space are not the intuitively constants that we once thought they were, rather they are flexible and depend on one's FoR.
Well certainly not by myself. But with all the interested members here, we have certainly helped to show your nonsensical claims as not worthy of science, and just as obviously the mods have agreed and moved them to the fringe.
Like I said, on face value it appears to be "counter intuitive," but the Universe being the weird and wonderful place it is, sometimes what we would normally view as logically intuitive is not in actual fact as intuitively correct as we thought.
Now all that differs from your nonsense, in the fact that it is supported by evidence.
Space and time are another two examples...once thought to be intuitively constants, we now know and have ample evidence to show both are not constant at all.
Last edited:
From a previous post.....
CLEAR:
1. Free from clouds, mist, or haze: a clear day.
2. Not obscured or darkened;
LIGHT:
part of the EMS that interacts with the human eye so we can see.
DARK:
Little or no light.
Clear is not a thing. If there was no light, nothing would be clear. If there was no light it would be dark.
Dark is not a thing. It is just the absence of the EMS.
Light is a thing. It reflects, it refracts, it interacts, it lets us see.
Now TC you can continue with your crap for as long as you like, and continue to act all indignant when everyone tells you that you are crazy, and you can continue to claim that you are correct despite what 350 years of evidence, and science has shown us.
You will never be right, other than in your own brain. [and I have my doubts about that]
You are only fooling one person.....yourself!
So again you are wrong. I have refuted you many times.
Not at all. You are exhibiting one of the classic logical fallacies - the argument from incredulity. Put simply you cannot conceive of space not existing, so you declare it illogical. Similar arguments are used by creationists - "I cannot understand evolution, therefore it is logically impossible!"
A good description from RationalWiki:
===============================================
Argument from Incredulity
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
- Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
- Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
- Conclusion: Not-P.
Examples
As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.
Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but his assumption that there is nothing more to know.
Another example is a scientific explanation of personal phenomenal experiences or "qualia". Because they do not know how physical processes could produce qualia, many philosophers conclude that therefore qualia cannot ever be explained.
Personal incredulity
Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P." Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is no more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective. Clinical trials are deliberately designed in such a way that an individual personal experience is not important compared to data in aggregate. Human beings have extremely advanced pattern recognition skills, to the extent that they are objectively poor judges of probability.
General incredulity
Sometimes argument from incredulity is applied to epistemological statements, taking the form "One can't imagine how one could know whether P or not-P, therefore it is unknowable whether P or not-P." This is employed by some (though not all) strong agnostics who say it is unknowable whether gods exist. The argument in this case is, "No one has thought of a way to determine whether there are gods, so there is no way." The implied major premise, "If there were such a way, someone would have thought of it," is disputable.
Oh look, I will put bold writing to try make my post look important. Like you said Paddy you are not even a scientist, you refute nothing and neither as science.
''You have been told this. According to the BB model, it was an evolution of space and time [as we know them] which by definition means there is no outside to expand into, no edges or center.''
You missed out the singular point to try to make the cult classic model look more viable.
Garbage, space existed before the big bang, end of, your fairy tales do not wash with me.
It is impossible to have something without having any space for the something to occupy, it is impossible for anything to expand without space to expand into.
I will not accept your bs version. It is untrue, unfounded and Physically an impossibility.
Unrelated gibberish because they know they are not smart enough to engage me in the topic.
It is a Psudeo section, do you not know the definition?
The mods know the definition I break no rules in this and of this section.
Again avoidance to the topic.
Answer the very simple question, religion says in the beginning there was nothing and god created all meaning including the big bang.
Science agrees with this and says before the big bang there was nothing.
I disagree with both , it is Physically impossible for space to not of existed first before anything the imagination can dream up.
You all fail to realise that rewinding back to nothing is a perceived image, you also fail to realise that if we removed all matter from the Universe making a void, added 1 sun and you with your back to the sun, it would be very dark for you.
You would see nothing.
You would see nothing.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
wikipedia offers a definition I find acceptable:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
If you are stating,, which you have repeatedly, that your assertions are not scientific, but pseudoscience, then you are not falsely presenting them as scientific and therefore your assertions cannot be considered pseudoscience and therefore your thread should be elsewhere.
I am presenting them has scientific fact , you are trying to twist the definition and paradox the definition, a respectful argument .
If I was presenting this in main I would be banned, I am in the correct section, a win lose situation either way, just like I like it to protect my own interests.
Again you do no discuss the content of the thread. Your post is in the wrong section, linguistics is the appropriate section.
The thread title is light, dark and clear , respectively changed to that by James.
This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and you are not Psychologists,
It is not a discuss me thread,
Please refrain from posting unless the post is science related, I do not wish to discuss ''Eastenders''
Dark , light , then the dark is clear.
Any argument in that?
This is not the Jeremy Kyle show and you are not Psychologists,
It is not a discuss me thread,
Please refrain from posting unless the post is science related, I do not wish to discuss ''Eastenders''
Dark , light , then the dark is clear.
Any argument in that?
Is the dark also clear?
How many states of dark is there?
The absence of all EM radiation including CBMR ,the absolute dark and no argument to refute this.
The absence of frequencies of between 400nm-800nm, a mind state of dark, there is no argument to refute this, science shows us other species and devices still perceive light.
Blind dark, a blind person never see's it as light.
The absence of infra red, concerning other species perceived dark.
Any others?
How many states of dark is there?
The absence of all EM radiation including CBMR ,the absolute dark and no argument to refute this.
The absence of frequencies of between 400nm-800nm, a mind state of dark, there is no argument to refute this, science shows us other species and devices still perceive light.
Blind dark, a blind person never see's it as light.
The absence of infra red, concerning other species perceived dark.
Any others?
Last edited:
Dark is just the absence of light is narrow and complacent. I offer quality Physics in my thinking.
What is dark?
Dark is a dependent perceived state by the absence of.
Light is a dependent perceived state by the presence of.
What is dark?
Dark is a dependent perceived state by the absence of.
Light is a dependent perceived state by the presence of.
Last edited:
- Status