The greats would have been appalled because they never thought of their theories in terms of absolutism .
Where as most do.
My point .
Last edited:
The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
- Status
The greats would have been appalled because they never thought of their theories in terms of absolutism .
Where as most do.
My point .
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Who specifically would be appalled River, name some names.
What do you mean that they would never think of their theories in terms of absolutism.
How do you know what they would think?
What are you saying is wrong?
Alex
I believe the greats would be making a quick exit once they saw where this thread was and the logic/reasonability or actually lack thereof, and shaking their heads in amazement.
I think the greats minds of physics were more humble to theory, because they realized science is a journey and not a final destination. If all things were settled by their creations, then why are we still investing money, looking at the universe? Those who memorize science and/or are too lazy to evolve with the times, will try it to make what they learn, into a dogma. The creators were already looking to the future, and waiting for the next generation of tools, to generate the needed data, so they can climb another step toward the final destination.
The next step is already here. If you look at our universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy. All the forces of nature, when they act, to reduce potential, will release energy quanta. What this tells me is that energy exist at lower potential than matter, since energy is a final product of matter lowering potential.
This can also be inferred from the creation of matter and anti-matter in the lab. Matter and anti-matter only appear at the upper limits of energy. You can''t form tangible matter from visible light, because matter and anti-matter only appear at the upper limits of energy quanta. If we cool the experiment, matter and anti-matter return to energy, lowering potential state.
If we formed matter and anti-matter, and eliminated the anti-matter, like is assumed of our universe, the matter left is still at extreme potential, but with no simple was way to return to energy. It exists as a ceiling, and not the floor of the universe. What this tells me, matter is at highest potential in our universe. Since matter generates inertial references; mass and GR, inertial reference is also at higher potential, than the speed of light reference of energy. The speed of light may be faster, but that is based on velocity and relative reference, but not based on potential energy hierarchy.
The net effect is modern physics is backwards, relative to the direction universal potential. We assume the earth and matter, is the ground state, based on relative reference and the needs of observation with eyes based on matter. This does not equate to the flow of universal potential from matter to energy. It is a valid approach. However, the current approach needs a lot of fudge factors, to compensate for a poor choice of the ground state of the universe.
As an analogy, say we built a city on a large plateau. It is taboo to go to the ends of the plateau. In the center of the plateau, is a large lake that is considered the ground state for all observations, based on what we are allowed to see. One day they notice that the lake is lowering faster than they calculate based on evaporation and usage. Because this is a plateau there is a gravitational potential that explains this water loss. There is no need of anything new. But since they cannot see the edge, so they assume the lake is the ground state, this is not a valid explanation. Instead, they will need to add a new form of energy, to explain what they see. If you assume the speed of light reference is the ground state, many fudge factors get eliminated.
The main problem is it is easier to observe the universe from higher potential reference like the earth, that from the speed of light, since we are composed of matter, which can never see the universe from the C reference. This has to be done based conceptualizing the limits of the math.
The next step is already here. If you look at our universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy. All the forces of nature, when they act, to reduce potential, will release energy quanta. What this tells me is that energy exist at lower potential than matter, since energy is a final product of matter lowering potential.
This can also be inferred from the creation of matter and anti-matter in the lab. Matter and anti-matter only appear at the upper limits of energy. You can''t form tangible matter from visible light, because matter and anti-matter only appear at the upper limits of energy quanta. If we cool the experiment, matter and anti-matter return to energy, lowering potential state.
If we formed matter and anti-matter, and eliminated the anti-matter, like is assumed of our universe, the matter left is still at extreme potential, but with no simple was way to return to energy. It exists as a ceiling, and not the floor of the universe. What this tells me, matter is at highest potential in our universe. Since matter generates inertial references; mass and GR, inertial reference is also at higher potential, than the speed of light reference of energy. The speed of light may be faster, but that is based on velocity and relative reference, but not based on potential energy hierarchy.
The net effect is modern physics is backwards, relative to the direction universal potential. We assume the earth and matter, is the ground state, based on relative reference and the needs of observation with eyes based on matter. This does not equate to the flow of universal potential from matter to energy. It is a valid approach. However, the current approach needs a lot of fudge factors, to compensate for a poor choice of the ground state of the universe.
As an analogy, say we built a city on a large plateau. It is taboo to go to the ends of the plateau. In the center of the plateau, is a large lake that is considered the ground state for all observations, based on what we are allowed to see. One day they notice that the lake is lowering faster than they calculate based on evaporation and usage. Because this is a plateau there is a gravitational potential that explains this water loss. There is no need of anything new. But since they cannot see the edge, so they assume the lake is the ground state, this is not a valid explanation. Instead, they will need to add a new form of energy, to explain what they see. If you assume the speed of light reference is the ground state, many fudge factors get eliminated.
The main problem is it is easier to observe the universe from higher potential reference like the earth, that from the speed of light, since we are composed of matter, which can never see the universe from the C reference. This has to be done based conceptualizing the limits of the math.
Gravage:
I'm not really sure where to start with this thread, so I'll pick one of your latest posts. We need to clear up a few of the basics before we can properly discuss the big bang, inflation and so on.
The actual number that represents the total energy doesn't matter very much. In fact, you can add an arbitrary number to any potential energy figure and it won't make any difference to the physics (as long as you do it consistently every time you write down an expression for that potential energy). So, fundamentally, it is no more meaningful to say that the universe has total energy 1 million than it is to say that it has total energy zero.
What you can't change is the requirement that gravitational potential energy must increase as masses get further apart and decrease as masses come together, because this is the only way that total mechanical energy can be conserved (given that kinetic energy cannot be negative).
Saying that "there is always energy in the universe" is true, but that in no way implies that the total energy of the universe can't be zero (or any other arbitrary number you want to choose).
As the ball falls, the kinetic energy $$K$$ increases. At the same time, the potential energy $$U$$ decreases, but in such a way that $$E$$ remains at whatever we set it to initially (which could be zero). Note that if we choose $$c=-U_{initial}$$, then at any later time we must have $$U=-K$$. That is, the gravitational potential energy is negative with this choice of the constant $$c$$.
Again, it is important to remember that $$E$$ is just a (conserved) number. It's not an amount of a magical substance called "energy". Choosing $$c$$ doesn't create or destroy any kind of substance - in fact it has no physical effect at all.
If you think there is a flaw in my explanation, by all means please point it out. We can't properly discuss the big bang if you can't get past basic energy conservation in an example such as a ball falling to the ground.
The question of "how much energy is needed for inflation" is a fairly meaningless one. Energy is an accounting system used to keep tabs on the inflation process. It isn't a substance that gets "used up" as the universe inflates.
Now, if you don't like general relativity, that's just fine. It's just a model that explains the observations, after all. It's not dogma. It's not religion. If you want to replace it, all you need to do is to provide a better model that explains those images etc. at least as well as general relativity does. Don't whine and moan about how much you hate general relativity; just provide a model that works better, or perhaps a simpler model that works at least equally as well.
If it was obvious, as you claim, then the wrong theories would have been tossed out by now. Physicists aren't idiots. Or are you alleging a Grand Scientific Conspiracy to Suppress The Truth?
I'm not really sure where to start with this thread, so I'll pick one of your latest posts. We need to clear up a few of the basics before we can properly discuss the big bang, inflation and so on.
Energy isn't a substance; it's just a number. It's useful because it is a conserved quantity in an isolated system (of which the universe as a whole is one example).
The actual number that represents the total energy doesn't matter very much. In fact, you can add an arbitrary number to any potential energy figure and it won't make any difference to the physics (as long as you do it consistently every time you write down an expression for that potential energy). So, fundamentally, it is no more meaningful to say that the universe has total energy 1 million than it is to say that it has total energy zero.
What you can't change is the requirement that gravitational potential energy must increase as masses get further apart and decrease as masses come together, because this is the only way that total mechanical energy can be conserved (given that kinetic energy cannot be negative).
Saying that "there is always energy in the universe" is true, but that in no way implies that the total energy of the universe can't be zero (or any other arbitrary number you want to choose).
Well, scientists don't trust that BS, because it's BS and not what science says. The universe clearly isn't "made from nothing". It's made from particles and fields and all that other good stuff. It only takes the observation that you exist to appreciate that you're not made from nothing.
A ball at rest above the ground has some value of total energy given by $$E=U+K+c$$, where $$U$$ is the gravitational potential energy, $$K$$ is the kinetic energy, and c is any arbitrary constant number you want to use. Since the ball is at rest, we have $$K=0$$, and we are free to set $$c=-U_{initial}$$, in which case at all subsequent times the ball has total energy $$E=0$$.
As the ball falls, the kinetic energy $$K$$ increases. At the same time, the potential energy $$U$$ decreases, but in such a way that $$E$$ remains at whatever we set it to initially (which could be zero). Note that if we choose $$c=-U_{initial}$$, then at any later time we must have $$U=-K$$. That is, the gravitational potential energy is negative with this choice of the constant $$c$$.
Again, it is important to remember that $$E$$ is just a (conserved) number. It's not an amount of a magical substance called "energy". Choosing $$c$$ doesn't create or destroy any kind of substance - in fact it has no physical effect at all.
Well, no, as I have just explained to you.
If you think there is a flaw in my explanation, by all means please point it out. We can't properly discuss the big bang if you can't get past basic energy conservation in an example such as a ball falling to the ground.
An atom is a complicated object with lots of different numbers adding up to give what we might call its total energy. We can associate an energy with the mass of the atom, add electrical potential energy in the electric forces that bind its constituents together, add some more potential energy associated with nuclear binding forces, add some kinetic energy due to its various motions (internal and overall external motion), and so on and so forth. And, importantly, some of those potential energies will be negative contributions to the total energy. At the end, we can always add an arbitrary constant $$c$$, chosen at will, and make the total energy zero, if we want to.
You keep speaking as if energy is a glowing substance that we only have so much of, and that this glowing magical substance somehow moves from one object to another. Energy isn't like that. It's just a number. The universe can start with 0 energy, of 1 million energy, or -27.5 energy - whatever is easiest to work with when you want to do an energy conservation calculation.
The question of "how much energy is needed for inflation" is a fairly meaningless one. Energy is an accounting system used to keep tabs on the inflation process. It isn't a substance that gets "used up" as the universe inflates.
Which particular "evidences" are you thinking of here? Can you give some specific examples?
Mathematics is just a tool for analysing the physics and for building a model that explains observations. The success of a physical theory lies not in how mathematical it is, or in what particular mathematics it uses, but in how accurately it models what we observe. That is, the job of the maths is to predict what we would expect to see if the model were correct. We then check the model against real-world data to see whether it matches.
That's more your opinion than fact, is it not? Can you prove your assertion?
According to Einstein's model of gravitational waves, the entire world does stretch and contract, with everything in it - just not very much. That's why detecting gravitational waves was such a monumentally difficult experimental challenge.
This is all very well, but we need to get down to models and observations. For example, so-called "gravitational lensing" of distance galaxies by intervening matter is observed daily. Moreover, the particular features seen in the resulting images observed through telescopes are exactly what we would expect if space and time bend in the way described by general relativity.
Now, if you don't like general relativity, that's just fine. It's just a model that explains the observations, after all. It's not dogma. It's not religion. If you want to replace it, all you need to do is to provide a better model that explains those images etc. at least as well as general relativity does. Don't whine and moan about how much you hate general relativity; just provide a model that works better, or perhaps a simpler model that works at least equally as well.
If it was obvious, as you claim, then the wrong theories would have been tossed out by now. Physicists aren't idiots. Or are you alleging a Grand Scientific Conspiracy to Suppress The Truth?
The total perceived energy of the universe is reference dependent. If you lived on top of a plateau, and assumed or defined the plateau, as the zero or ground state, you would be ignoring the gravitational potential energy, from the top of the plateau to the sea level. This will be hidden energy. This energy exists in reality, but is not part of the observed world based on the assumption of a zero point that has potential. Sea level of not negative energy, other than in math. Affects may appear, such as the lake on the plateaus draining too fast to be explained with evaporation. But since the zero point is defined by the plateau, we may need to add dark negative energy, to close the energy balance, even though this is not even real. All references are not relative, with respect to energy balances.
For example, say we have two rockets of different mass; M and 2M, side by side with zero relative velocity. We only add energy to one of the rockets. Energy conservation will tell use the total energy of the two rockets. If we assume relative reference, based on the final velocity between the two rockets and one rocket is twice the mass of the other, one rocket will see double the kinetic energy of the other, even though we know this cannot not be true, due to the known energy balance. One reference will be in violation of energy conservation and not even know it, since it assumes that all references are relative and there is no absolute hierarchy. This example shows, there is an absolute hierarchy based on energy, even if velocity is relative.
This is why you need to use the speed of light as the ground state. This is the same in all references, and therefore offers a way to do an energy balance that will be consistent in all references. Physics has chosen relative ground state, as the zero point for energy, rendering the analysis overly complicated.
I'm starting a Go Fund Me to build my own CERN
All donations accepted and in any currency
All donations accepted and in any currency
I'll answer this, as much as I can find some time and that's about it.
What's wrong with you? Are you on PCP or what? If energy is number than everrythig else is number, it only additionally proves how stupid mathematicians can get-and yet they are suppose to be smart, anyone involved with mathematics does not leave in a real world, but in a fictional world where everything is numbers-well, the real universe is not number, neither is energy they all exist, no energy no universe no people-so no energy is not number, energy is substance it's not some number since numbers first do not exist ina real world, they only exist in mathematics and statistics, and third, if there was no energy there would not be any universe, no activity, no work, no existence-energy as number exist in mathematics and statistics.
And I'm answering you for once forget about mathematics and look at the fact, if any of this was ever true, there would not be the universe, and there would not be matter created and no galaxies, planets or stars, nothing-this is reality, stop thinking mathematically, for once this is the main reason toda'ys science is not science anymore, it's merely mathematical and statistical religion disguised as science.
Obviously scisntists are BS, if they actually think that the energy of the universe is really zero, it's not zero, othrwise everything would be anihiliated back to beginning.
Obviously science does say this if they claim the energy of the universe is zero-it's like saying the universe does not exist, what's next these idiots would claim that infinity can exist inside finity-I cannot believe we live in a world of such stupidity and mathematical religion, where logic and facts and real evidences are put aside, while mathematics and statistics are supreme Gods.
Again if any of this was true, there would not be any ball or gravity to exist in the first place,since they would annihilate each other, use facts, not math, with math anyone can prove anything h/she wants to prove-that's not possible in the real world, what mathematics and statistics have proven so far is that they are both tools of deception and nothing more, this is when people start to lose common sense and logic and ignore facts and real evidences and than create hypotheses that only exist in their own minds.
With you explanation you have only proven how stupid and unrelable mathematics can get, it is why you are so blind since the numbers are your religion and nothing more.
Like I said atom does have energy, it's never 0.
Energy is not a number, if there was no energy there would not be any universe, numbers exist only in your head, and that's about it-nubers do not exist anyhwhere in nature/universe-energy does exist, it is a form of activity and without it there is no existence in an form on any level (unless we are talking about space which is basically only 100% empty void).
I mean on every single experiment that is made so far in physics starting from relativity to quantum mechanics-relativity experiments are so much misinterpreted, while quantum mechanics is like blind man trying to detect which animal he is touching, since in quantum mechanics you really don't know anything what you have proven.
Mathematics and statistics are pure religions, and anyone who says anything differently is treated like crap-that is the fact-with mathematics and statistics it is possible to prove and siporve everything-and that's why they are perfect tools of deception.
Yes, you have everywhere in the universe examples and facts and evidences, from quantum levels to macroscopic levels-nonexistence cannot create existence-this is another total mathematical bullshit which is 100% wrong, I'd rather become religious and start believe in God.
It's interesting how you claim something that is simply not possible in any way, on any level, in any form.
And I have questions for how can universe that is expanding exist inside nothing????
How can universe that has dimensions exist in nothing which is 100% dimensionless-it's simply not possible-mathematics created traps for itself, why it simply not possible.
End of part 1....
Part 2....
It's not I don't like, it's the fact that are too many holes in relativity and the relativity itself is so much misinterpreted in its most fundamental parts like time and space.
Yes, physicists are idiots, if they don't take into account such small details that disprove relativity, like with the space and energy.
You laugh at conspiracy theories but the fact is the theorioes that give you funding are the one that get most push-this is the law of money, and it's omnipresent, you don't even try to question and criticize your own religion matehamtics, statistics and science in general-you just accept what you are told.
The fact is you can not trust anyone on this planet these days, because everything is about the damn money, and it is the funding that decides what is exactly proven, and mathematics and statistics are the perfect tools for deception, yes that includes the global warming hypothesis, sure there is ongoing climate change, but how much is true when it come to data and statistics, none can know this, and this is why I can fully understand conspiracy theorists.
You never know how much of these so called conspiracy theories are true.
If you think that the world is black and white like mathematical and statistical brain says it is, it is not, it's grey, and people are capable of doing of all sorts of things, that includes both scientists and technologists.
Gravity waves are crap, you are telling me that that one signal is from them, it's impossible to isolate from other signals, no matter how much you try, it's crap since you don't know what has been detected in the first place.
[/QUOTE]This is all very well, but we need to get down to models and observations. For example, so-called "gravitational lensing" of distance galaxies by intervening matter is observed daily. Moreover, the particular features seen in the resulting images observed through telescopes are exactly what we would
expect if space and time bend in the way described by general relativity.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, no models, we had enough models, screw them, they gave us nothing, what you also forget is the fact that all those obersvations are misinterpreted-they are interpreted in the way like the math says not in they way these MODELS TRULY SHOW AS EVIDENCE-SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT OBSERVATION, IT'S ABOUT INTERPRETATION HOW TRULY CORRECT IT IS, AND DOES ANY EXPERIMENT TRULY SHOW THAT INTERPRETATION, OR BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF OBSERVATION IT DOES NOT SHOW WHAT MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS say it shows-one thing is what mathematics and statistics about experiment show, it's completely another thing on what exactly experiments show.
Unfortunately, the fact is scientists always show only what mathematics and statistics show, with twisted reasoning and abstract stupidities that are not even shown in any experiment what so ever.
It's not I don't like, it's the fact that are too many holes in relativity and the relativity itself is so much misinterpreted in its most fundamental parts like time and space.
Yes, physicists are idiots, if they don't take into account such small details that disprove relativity, like with the space and energy.
You laugh at conspiracy theories but the fact is the theorioes that give you funding are the one that get most push-this is the law of money, and it's omnipresent, you don't even try to question and criticize your own religion matehamtics, statistics and science in general-you just accept what you are told.
The fact is you can not trust anyone on this planet these days, because everything is about the damn money, and it is the funding that decides what is exactly proven, and mathematics and statistics are the perfect tools for deception, yes that includes the global warming hypothesis, sure there is ongoing climate change, but how much is true when it come to data and statistics, none can know this, and this is why I can fully understand conspiracy theorists.
You never know how much of these so called conspiracy theories are true.
If you think that the world is black and white like mathematical and statistical brain says it is, it is not, it's grey, and people are capable of doing of all sorts of things, that includes both scientists and technologists.
Gravity waves are crap, you are telling me that that one signal is from them, it's impossible to isolate from other signals, no matter how much you try, it's crap since you don't know what has been detected in the first place.
[/QUOTE]This is all very well, but we need to get down to models and observations. For example, so-called "gravitational lensing" of distance galaxies by intervening matter is observed daily. Moreover, the particular features seen in the resulting images observed through telescopes are exactly what we would
expect if space and time bend in the way described by general relativity.[/QUOTE]
Wrong, no models, we had enough models, screw them, they gave us nothing, what you also forget is the fact that all those obersvations are misinterpreted-they are interpreted in the way like the math says not in they way these MODELS TRULY SHOW AS EVIDENCE-SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT OBSERVATION, IT'S ABOUT INTERPRETATION HOW TRULY CORRECT IT IS, AND DOES ANY EXPERIMENT TRULY SHOW THAT INTERPRETATION, OR BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF OBSERVATION IT DOES NOT SHOW WHAT MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS say it shows-one thing is what mathematics and statistics about experiment show, it's completely another thing on what exactly experiments show.
Unfortunately, the fact is scientists always show only what mathematics and statistics show, with twisted reasoning and abstract stupidities that are not even shown in any experiment what so ever.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Magnificent speech I will now sit back and watch the scientific and mathematical worlds crumple.
Your post will surely be world headline news tomorrow.
Alwx
If he was a vet he might make an effort to seperate a Siamese cat
Which incidentally was the type of cat Schroeder put in the box
Got it
Ping (light bulb goes on overhead)
There was never NOTHING √ tick
Something cannot come from NOTHING √ TICK
ergo Everything has always been √ tick
Can you give me how long back does everything go?
Thanks
True and is never has been
en·er·gy
\ˈe-nər-jē\
noun
- : ability to be active : the physical or mental strength that allows you to do things
- : natural enthusiasm and effort
- : usable power that comes fromheat, electricity, etc.
- 1 a : dynamic quality <narrativeenergy>
b : the capacity of acting or beingactive <intellectual energy>
c : a usually positive spiritual force<the energy flowing through all people> - 2 : vigorous exertion of power : effort<investing time and energy>
- 3 : a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work
- 4 : usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power
synonyms see power
Examples
- many Eastern cultures believe in the significance of life energy in the healing process
- for a woman of advanced years, she has remarkable energy
- some of the power needs of the house are provided by solar energy
First use: 1599
Synonyms: aura, chi (or ch'i also qi), ki, vibe(s), vibration(s)
Antonyms: lethargy, listlessness, sluggishness, torpidity
Mirriam-Webster
Energy is most often considered as
3 : a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work
Short version
the ability to do work
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy
Gives the various types of energy and I guess you could call the amount of energy measured by these units numbers
But the numbers are not a description of the energy just the amount
So as usual this boils down to "I don't understand physics so it must be wrong".
Isn't it grand that there is an internet where you can rant and show your ignorance about physics?
Waste of time and effort - bye-bye.
...so...after perusing these 17 pages of "...continuation/commentary on an earlier thread", I thought that an "alternate" viewpoint might be presented - from someone who has evidently considered his "viewpoint" quite extensively,
I refer to an 'essay?/article?/diatribe?' Authored by an admittedly 'different thinking' individual...
That individual is Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., and an interesting thing about Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. is that he is quite fervent in his support of "Panspermia", and has even "Sued" NASA ! - see : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rhawn_Joseph
At any rate, here is a Link to the aforementioned 'essay?/article?/diatribe?' Authored by an admittedly 'different thinking' individual... : http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html
" THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG When Religion Masquerades As Science" by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Interesting reading with a few, what to me at least, seem to be easily refutable posits....
..but, Science is about considering all of the various aspects of any data/research/experiments/hypotheses/theories...so...
it appears that Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. at least broaches some aspects that seem to be worthy of further consideration.
NOTE : The article is fairly long and somewhat "disjointed" in places...
I refer to an 'essay?/article?/diatribe?' Authored by an admittedly 'different thinking' individual...
That individual is Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., and an interesting thing about Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. is that he is quite fervent in his support of "Panspermia", and has even "Sued" NASA ! - see : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rhawn_Joseph
At any rate, here is a Link to the aforementioned 'essay?/article?/diatribe?' Authored by an admittedly 'different thinking' individual... : http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html
" THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG When Religion Masquerades As Science" by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Interesting reading with a few, what to me at least, seem to be easily refutable posits....
..but, Science is about considering all of the various aspects of any data/research/experiments/hypotheses/theories...so...
it appears that Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. at least broaches some aspects that seem to be worthy of further consideration.
NOTE : The article is fairly long and somewhat "disjointed" in places...
Yes, you got in before me Alex.
I mean this scientific and mathematical work by this genius Gravage will most certainly make headlines. In fact although I have not bought a Daily Newspaper now for 2 years or more, I am now going out to buy every daily chronicle I can get my hands on, just to read up on this new Einstein we have in our midst!
Obviously as we know, this forum is also read by all the notable scientists/physicists/cosmologists in the world, so we can immediatly see a change in what is now accepted as the most likely scenario.
The halls of academia will be sweeping out all this old nonsense and making room for this new incredible understanding and knowledgable Einstein that has suddenly burst on the scene, to enlighten us all as to reality and everything else.
We are all members here, extremely lucky to witness this first hand.
[note: no funny face, no tic comment, no raised eyebrows]
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
May I suggest getting a scrap book in which you can "cut and paste" the articles unless anyone objects to that procedure.
Alex
Did you make a serious spelling error?
Did you mean to say scrap or crap?
Please enlighten
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well its moot there was nothing in the paper.Did you make a serious spelling error?
Did you mean to say scrap or crap?
Please enlighten
No doubt a documentary is on its way.
In all the time Mr G has been posting he has yet to make a point.
Alex
- Status