BB is an incomplete theory . A System Universe is more complete.

Status
Not open for further replies.
globali said:
unfortunately we can't agree or even disagree with you because there is absolutely no scientific rigor in your arguments or statements.
Since you obviously are a philosophical person who likes to think about nature, i think its a big pity you didn't pursue a scientific career, so you can learn how science is done. It seems that you missed the first seasons of a show and you just started watching directly from the 6th season, two episodes before the end.

Your statements have the same value as poetry, or as the lyrics of a song. They might be true or not (i am not qualified to judge that), but even if they are true and somebody makes a theory out of them, it is highly unlikely that you are going to get any credit, because you don't back up your arguments. There is no scientific rigor here. Unless you don't care, you just wanna share your thoughts anyway, which is fine.

A poet might have guessed a truth in a poem, but that doesn't make him a scientist or a discoverer.
Click to expand...

Oh I know how science is done . Tow the line , of mainstream thinking .

I wish I had followed a scientific career , but that wasn't in the cards , for me . And frankly I'm sure I would have been ridiculed anyway .

In the end , I know that I will pass before my theory is proven to be true . We can't detect neither , dark energy nor matter . Barely the existence of the Cosmic Web . Yet I explain both . The Cosmic Web has been shown to exist , by using the energy from a Quasar .

Whether I get credit . Time will tell .

In the future someone will take my theory further .

river
 
Further we know that BB is not a theory that explains the existence of the Universe .

my thinking is more complete . Upon this Universe

Nothing has no place in any theory of this Universe . I proved this .

Hence any theory of the Universe is based on something .
 
Your theory is impossible to be proven right or even wrong. What are the mathematical predictions that scientists will find that will prove your points? Where are the equations that explain your ideas? Where are the equations that describe the properties of the so called "cosmic web", the equations of the filaments, etc?

Do you understand why you don't even have a theory?

For example, i might have a theory that time is matter. There is no theory at all, if i don't describe the equations that transform the one form to the other or their relationship.
My idea has exactly the same status as a song that says" time is matter, yeah yeah ooh lala
 
globali said:
Your theory is impossible to be proven right or even wrong. What are the mathematical predictions that scientists will find that will prove your points? Where are the equations that explain your ideas? Where are the equations that describe the properties of the so called "cosmic web", the equations of the filaments, etc?

Do you understand why you don't even have a theory?

For example, i might have a theory that time is matter. There is no theory at all, if i don't describe the equations that transform the one form to the other or their relationship.
My idea has exactly the same status as a song that says" time is matter, yeah yeah ooh lala
Click to expand...

To have any mathematical equation , you must first understand the physical dynamics of the idea .



Time is the measurement of physical movement by energy and matter .

Time though is irrelavent to any objects fundamental movement
 
without mathematical descriptions, you dont have a theory, you dont have a model, not even a working hypothesis, or an argument. You only have an idea (that you personally think is interesting).

And in science you dont get credit only for ideas
 
globali said:
without mathematical descriptions, you dont have a theory, you dont have a model, not even a working hypothesis, or an argument. You only have an idea (that you personally think is interesting).

And in science you dont get credit only for ideas
Click to expand...

A theory must describe the physical , in my case , otherwise where do these mathematical descriptions begin ?

Mathematics needs , is based on , direction . Where to start .
 
physics is about the mathematical description of the universe. Without equations its not even description.
 
globali said:
physics is about the mathematical description of the universe. Without equations its not even description.
Click to expand...

Yes it is , agreed

The thing is though the physical , its self , has gone missing . Hence BB is really based on , nothing then something . Which is impossible .
 
river said: ↑
For me , something always has been , the Universe in all its energy and matter forms , always existed
Click to expand...

globali said:
I think so too.

But then again this is my opinion. It has nothing to do with science
Click to expand...

But why do you think this though ? Why do you agree with my statement above ?

Science is about knowledge , in Latin , scire , know

In Archaic , meaning , And knowledge of any kind . Go back far enough , you will find that knowledge is knowledge . Science

We are all doing science .
 
The Physical , energy and matter , exists without mathematics

Mathematics can not exist without the physical .
 
river:

river said:
Go back to my first post .
Click to expand...
I was responding to your first post. You didn't explain why you think the big bang is 2 dimensional. So I asked you.

Energy is a substance , it exists .
Click to expand...
No, it's not a substance. It's a number - an accounting system.

Because energy is based on the movement , of physical things.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Maybe you're thinking of kinetic energy (which isn't a substance, either, by the way).

Where energy , the super cold , flows , it has no eletromagnetic form .
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question I asked you.

The two polarities , which are three dimensional within themselves , give direction to the magnetic field
Click to expand...
How?

Where does this logic produce any existence of anything ?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Things aren't made of energy.
 
river said:
Oh I know how science is done . Tow the line , of mainstream thinking .
Click to expand...
Wrong.

A research scientist would like nothing better than to overturn "mainstream thinking" by making a marvellous new discovery.

Where do you think new scientific knowledge comes from?

In the end , I know that I will pass before my theory is proven to be true .
Click to expand...
You don't have a theory. You don't even have a testable hypothesis. All you have is a bunch of vague, unconnected notions about stuff you don't know much about.

We can't detect neither , dark energy nor matter . Barely the existence of the Cosmic Web . Yet I explain both . The Cosmic Web has been shown to exist , by using the energy from a Quasar .
Click to expand...
Really? Please provide a reference showing how the cosmic web has been shown to exist by using the energy of a quasar.

river said:
Further we know that BB is not a theory that explains the existence of the Universe .
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.

my thinking is more complete .
Click to expand...
No. Your thinking doesn't give us any handles we can grab onto in order to try to advance science. There's nothing testable. You can't even clearly define the terms you use, apparently.

Nothing has no place in any theory of this Universe . I proved this .
Click to expand...
Great! Post your proof, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top