What qualifies as science?
- Thread starter Jozen-Bo
- Start date
Ah yes. It wasn't the BB at all - it was just a four-dimensional star (i.e. something never observed and highly speculative) that exploded.
Essentially his only quibble with the BB is the "infinitely dense" starting point.
Oh, and please provide evidence that Afshordi is "brilliant" (while I'm at it I feel I should point out that ONE person doesn't constitute "many people").
Yes, there are many speculative papers about from many scientists...The thing is though that most do know where science starts and ends, and where speculation starts and ends. I'm sure the bloke in question knows perfectly well that we know nothing re that first Planck instant of 10-43 seconds, but just as obviously, those with agendas, will grab hold of what ever speculation seems to support their cause....it doesn't, the scientists know that, most here know that, while the one pushing their general anti mainstream science agenda, grabs it and ignores all empirical evidence.
That particular point has always been a bone of contention. That's why it's referred to as a singularity (i.e. where the maths breaks down).
SFW? Or are you claiming that everyone who works there [sup]1[/sup] is "brilliant"? How do you know?
1 Or perhaps your contention is that it's just theoretical physicists who work at institutes who are "brilliant". (He's not that brilliant - he can't even use a spell checker -
).
Last edited:
That particular point has always been a bone of contention. That's why it's referred to as a singularity (i.e. where the maths breaks down).
SFW? Or are you claiming that everyone who works there[sup]1[/sup] is "brilliant"? How do you know?
1 Or perhaps your contention is that it's just theoretical physicists who work at institutes who are "brilliant". (He's not that brilliant - he can't even use a spell checker -
Well who is it at this
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics that is not ?
Oh dear...
YOU made the claim, you support it.
Like I asked: are you claiming that everyone who works there is "brilliant"? Are you claiming that every theoretical physicist is "brilliant"? (If so please define "brilliant").
Well why and how else would they be invited to come to the PITP in the first place ?
So you ARE claiming that everyone who works there is "brilliant"?
Please define "brilliant" for me.
Right, because "theoretical physicsology" is a thing.
How do you know that he "knows it completely"? Or is this yet another guess?
You're the one that used the word- I want to know what you meant.
By your "definition" (assuming that by "know one ology completely" you actually mean any particular subject) then I'm "brilliant" at least three times over.
brilliant ; can take an ology above what is known .
Right so
1) you've now changed the "definition",
2) you're still assuming "brilliance" (with regard to Afshordi - his idea may turn out to be complete nonsense)
3) you still haven't provided any more of these "many" "brilliant people"
4) I still qualify.
I have tried google brilliant theoretical physics against BB not many found .
not surprised since I have no confidence that they would be acknowledged any way . oh well .
So now you're admitting that you're either dishonest or lazy.
You suggested that we do so (here) either knowing there was nothing or without checking for yourself.
Right - but you suggested that we do so anyway.
Still waiting for names of these (supposedly) "brilliant people". (Unless, of course, you were just making that up).
not lazy but lazy I suppose , just thought they would be more accessible just from yrs of finding other points of view , I have come across many who disagree with BB theory . I have forgotten many of these peoples names but they are out there . I assumed that they would be easy to find , they weren't . oh well .
So, given that YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY CHECK and, if we accept that your claim to not be lazy, the logical option is that you're dishonest.
Got it.
What you're saying is that you can't back up your claim.
no , lazy but not lazy , just an assumption . of which I was wrong to make . I take of course the full responsibility of my assumption. .
Got it.
What you're saying is that you can't back up your claim.[/QUOTE]
for now
but there are those out there that can .
According to you at least. Then again, you've already (and multiply) shown yourself to be unreliable with regard to facts.
No. Technology is essentially applied science.