Not at all. An astute observer of the human condition with objective validation of my skills provided by the power given to me by some very hard headed business men to select, or reject, hire, or fire individuals on six figure salaries. My observations of professional industrial psychology is that it produces excellent results, it is just the conclusions that stem from these results are not always as professional, or well balanced. So that leaves me with a powerful, proven practical asset. Such a statment strongly suggests you have no idea what this is about. This is a forum, open to all, therefore - by definition - my commentary upon you, or your commentary upon anyone else, cannot represent the act of a busybody. Unless, of course, you wish to make the then meaningless claim that we are all busybodies. As to the adjectival modification - professional - it depends what you mean. No, I don't get paid for it, but yes, I try to do it as well as I can. (Judging by your reaction here I obviously touched a nerve. Quite a raw one I should say.) You want me to take modesty lessons?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No. Not me. No digging here. I've never been into physical jerks. Perhaps the sound you hear is your time running out. Pitter patter. Pitter patter.
A sphere has constant curvature, no matter what size it is, see Point 10 (though I'm sure you think the fact I can back up what I say is just a sign of parroting). Similarly, a completely smooth and unperturbed AdS space will have constant curvature, but negative. If the amount of dark energy per unit volume is constant, then the curvature, no matter how large the universe is, is constant. It's initially an area of very low density and gravitational collapse in nearby regions increases this, because there's no equivalently large attractive entities within the low density region. That's how gravitational collapse works, it makes the initial perturbations in uniformity of matter distribution more extreme. Why can't you grasp that? Several problems. Firstly, as already explained, the curvature for a sphere is not that which is seen in observations. Secondly, a 3-sphere is not the only closed, boundary-less 3d shape. Tori can have the same properties, but are more intricate. Even if we made observations which show the same objects directly above say the North Pole as the South Pole (ie light has traveled all the way around the universe), it wouldn't automatically mean the universe is 3-sphere, because toric shapes can have such structures too. So if we see no distortions, no edges and no 'repeated' galaxies on opposite sides of the sky, we don't know the shape of the spacial dimensions in the universe. If we see repeated galaxies on opposite sides of the sky, then we know the universe is definitely closed in some direction. If we see repeated galaxies all over the sky then we know it's a 3-sphere. If there's only particular directions which have repeated galaxies then it's a tori universe, because only particular directions would end up looping back to you. See, you don't know any of this because you don't know any geometry of this kind. And yet you think you know all this cosmology stuff better than most physicists. But you don't read books on cosmology, you don't read mainstream papers, you only come here to whine, not to discuss, and you don't have any qualifications in physics or maths. So you have none of the tools, resources or knowledge to have any clue about any kind of physics and yet you keep claiming you beat everyone in arguments and how you've got so much better understanding/knowledge than everyone else. And you called me a faker! :Bugeye: You're the one whose faking his claims of understanding and knowledge. You keep getting schooled on stuff that 10 year old has learn. I didn't say that. No, you did nothing of the sort. You demonstrated you didn't understand topology or geometry, so I corrected you. Just like I did about 2 quotes up in this post. Again. Which does nothing to address what I said. Because you don't even know the work of others. I am not claiming any of this stuff is my work. You really can't understand, can you? You don't understand mainstream work. I correct you. You complain I keep telling you mainstream work. You then repeat your ignorance about mainstream work. I correct you. Repeat indefinitely. If you understood mainstream work, I'd not need to discuss it with you. I'd not need to constantly be spoon feeding you information which is easy to find. I keep saying "Let's go over to the physics forum and discuss my work" but you keep refusing, saying it's too boring. When infact, you won't discuss my work because you wouldn't understand it. And yet all my explainations are my own work, typed off the top of my head, and I'm able to explain things specifically retorting your errors. You can't even parrot other people's work, you don't know it. And yet you couldn't find it yourself. Anyone who knows a bit about spherically geometry wouldn't make your mistake. And yet you continue to repeat the same mistake all the time. Every time you trot out that insult (can't think of anything new?), you just show that you're unable to even find and grasp things a 10 year old can. A lie. How many threads have you and I been through this song and dance in? You work the same way Nick does, you repeat the same questions again and again, 'forgetting' that you've already been told the answers many times. How many times have you asked me how I can post so much and work towards a PhD. Many times I told you my daily schedule. How many times have you asked why the BB didn't turn into a black hole. How many times did I explain the lack of causal contact between the material in the universe? How many of my direct questions have you ignored? I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the BB cannot predict the right light element ratios, because there's plenty of material online which shows otherwise. Go find a 10 year old and get his help to find it. And yet people do it all the time. 10 years ago we didn't know about dark energy. Now we think it makes up 70% of the universe. Every day paradigms get knocked over in favour of new ones. That's what science is. But you wouldn't know, you don't know any and you don't want to know any. Why is it you always seem to think you 'won some arguments' when noone else thinks you did? Would you care to head over to the maths and physics forum to do some quantitative discussion on the nature of the forces on an object near and at the event horizon of a black hole, something you think you 'schooled' Rpenner and myself on ages ago, but didn't actually. If it's so easy and we are so wrong, it shouldn't be much of an effort for you to put me in my place. What do you have to hide?
