by addressing entities that need addressing, not trying to rewrite what has been established for decades now.
amusing.
The True Origin of The Universe?
- Thread starter dumbest man on earth
- Start date
amusing.
In answer to both...The scientific method and peer review.
But you already know that.
Thats it , so the " peers " are what dictates what is accepted and what is not
So what if a theory is beyond these " peers " understanding ?
Exactly. It is by definition a new theory is going to re-formulate some current theory, unless it is a theory about something we were completely unaware of, in which case it might fit with the rest without conflicts. Although, those new theories that do fit without conflict would perhaps be more of an "expansion", rather than "revolutionary". But if it is "revolutionary", that indeed implies it was a "different path".
Proper Peer review is undertaken by professional experts in that field, again, as you well should know.
It's far more likely to be beyond the true understandings of some of the Alternative hypothesis pushers, who claim to have ToE's
Three things...It will align with the scientific method and peer review....
It will most likely be from mainstream circles anyway....
and if any alternative pusher had anything worthwhile, they would not be here.... :shrug:
And if any theory is beyond their understanding , what then ?
How many " peers " are actually all that brillant in their field ?
In answer to both...The scientific method and peer review.
But you already know that.
That is confirmation of your prejudice and unquestionable faith in divine "peer review". But they are just bunch of science-fearing priests who got their job exactly for their devotion to orthodox dogma and loyalty to alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords.
you just made it obvious that you clearly do not understand the process,
and yet, you find it some how justified to ridicule a process that you have no understanding of.
this is where the malfunctioning mind initiates.
I just asked the question of understanding , whats the problem ?
Not in the least as I pointed out in my previous lengthy post.
But your unquestionable faith in divine "tall poppy syndrome"and "delusions of grandeur" by those on this forum claiming to have ToE's is noted for future reference.
Never mind. But you and I do not compare. I said I am agnostic even about myself, I'm always open to everything, I do not ignore anything, always happy to be proven wrong. I am actually always looking forward to be proven wrong about something, because then I know that I know better than I knew before. I look at mainstream science theories through the same glasses I look at any other theory, I do not discriminate, I do not have a prejudice. I am the opposite of you.
Good attitude to have , humbleteleskop
He only makes empty provocations, completely incapable of articulating any reason or explanation for anything he asserts.
I don't. Obviously like you and rivers, I am not a professional and am not really qualified or otherwise to validate or invalidate some stuff.
Unlike you though, yes, I place a certain amount of trust within the mainstream position, because afterall, that position has already run the gauntlet.
Unlike you, I am very cynical of alternative hypothesis pushers who come out of nowhere, claiming Einstein or some other great was an Idiot, and then proceeds to claim to know the secrets of the Universe.
I treat such delusions with the contempt they deserve.
no the problem is both of you are completely brainless and can not comprehend words that are used.
you can not see the explaining, because of your malfunctioning minds.
but not only that, it's obvious as to what you are doing.
your attempts at arguing is even low.
at least be intelligent about it like you presume your selves to be,
which is also a pathetic joke.
for once,
try understanding what you read before making the obvious lack of a mind fictitious statements.
Not wrong, just different question. I'll answer your question after you answer mine, because I asked first and because I already answered your question before.
I don't know what could possibly be the thing you are talking about, and you forgot to mention.
I was once a Catholic and went to a Catholic school....Then I started to grow up, and think for myself...and read, and learn.....I became Agnostic, not sure one way or the other.
But a funny thing happened.
The more I learned, the more I read reputable books, the more realisation arose that showed me any and all deities were just not necessary.
The following explains this uneccessary deity myth far better than I can....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.
Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Sure we have no direct evidence supporting such a scenario, but we are getting there, and worth noting, that the speculative scenario as outlined, aligns with current laws of physics, and GR.
Yes, I claim the phenomena called "quantum entanglement" is simply a deterministically predictable manifestation of classical local probability, and not any kind of mysterious non-local quantum effect of instantaneous action over distance, as is currently believed to be a fact. Here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141815-Bell-s-theorem-spooky-lucky-streaks-!
It's rather well known. See Wikipedia or Google. If I do that work for you Russty might again accuse me of plagiarism.
Yes, it is logical if you come up with a theory that before publishing you would want to discuss it with other people first. You seem to have a very low opinion about people on internet forums, so much that you believe it would be stupid for anyone genuine to even bother talking to them. But they are us, which includes you. Very interesting opinion.