No, not BS...the accepted cosmological model.
all based on observational evidence and the four pillars supporting BB/Inflationary cosmology.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
World Lines & (x, y, z, t)
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
No, not BS...the accepted cosmological model.
all based on observational evidence and the four pillars supporting BB/Inflationary cosmology.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
bs!
Here's an excellent link....
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html
from the link.....
Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I still don't see it.
Being under an illusion, that it is smart not to align with mainstream cosmology, just for the sake of appearing to think for ones self, is rather daffy to say the least.
But that's OK, don't get it peer reviewed. Let it stagnate for your lifetime in your brain.
No skin off my nose.
The mainstream model, remains as is, for obvious reasons.
No skin off my nose either, so drop the "get it peer reviewed" drama already! Why are you always trying to get people to write papers?
Yes, good point that is consistent with the current cosmology. Everywhere at once, like you say. Did you ever wonder about the origin of that state, pre 10^-43, or the point of space? Or does "nothing is known" resolve the question in your mind, and your mind doesn't wonder?
No way. It's the best way to sort the wheat from the chaff.....the real scientist from the pseudo ratbag.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Get your nonsense peer reviewed. They will tell you what is and what isn't BS.
So for the last 10+ years I've been explaining to people my ideas on distance and time and you think I'll finally make my point if I write up a few pages and send if off with a check to some people that are really smart, unlike AN and James R and rpenner? (rolls eyes).
Of course I have wondered!
And I have my own speculative idea....But speculative idea it remains.
I don't pretend to have a ToE or to want to rewrite 21st century cosmology.
That's the failings of some alternative people here. They put there hypothesis as fact...undefined, Farsight, and Sylvester being the obvious three...maybe a few hanger oners also.
No one knows about that period. That's the limit of our knowledge at this time...same with a BH singularity.
When we finally have a validated QGT, we maybe able to see further, and push the Singularity status back further.
Now that was uncalled for. Do you think name calling is the way this forum should go, because some of us don't do it, and don't think it helps the forum, but instead hurts the forum. What do you think?
You have a ridiculious hypothesis that borders on pseudoscience...that's all.
But that's your business.
Mainstream science progresses on new evidence and further observations....not personal feelings and fairy tale ideas.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Personal feelings and fairy tales are what Einstein brought to the table. I bring hardcore truth!
I was asked a question.
I answered it truthfully.
Why do you think that those alternative pushers with grand ideas and grand egos, knock the scientific methodology and peer review.
It's not perfect, but it's the best we have got, and has been obviously very successful so far.
It is good to be able to know the difference between speculation and fact. I know the difference, and so do you. So is it wrong to talk about our individual speculations among ourselves, in the proper forum?
You just wonder, but don't write down what you speculate about when you wonder? Do you think that speculating is akin to claiming to rewrite cosmology, or would it be possible for someone to have their own ideas about the cosmology as they wonder about it?
Saying the current theory is the limit of our knowledge is a bit presumptuous. Maybe what you know is the current theory, but theory is not knowledge; you have knowledge of the theory.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Enough of the excuses. Close enough is not correct, it's a near miss.
You also have a ToE?
I mean we have three of them already and each claim to be the new truth and reality, so you will need to stand in line....
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You also have a ToE?
Is there an alternative? I leave you no choice! The truth prevails and all else fails!
Not making excuses...just stating it as it is.
Science/cosmology is not perfect, and neither is peer review........
But they still are showing the way, and any future advancements/discoveries etc, will not come from some ego inflated alternative pusher...It will be from the heart of mainstream science/cosmology.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, I don't follow that.
questions:
a) what is light travel time? Do you mean "c"?
IMO, "c" is the upper limit of an object becoming expressed in physical reality. It's against the law of physics to go faster. It is a true constant, the boundary between physical and meta-physical (or "real" and "unknown")
b) Yes, traversing (measuring) a meter creates a duration of time, depending on the speed you are traversing that meter, but a meter has no intrinsic connection to time.
Can you measure me a meter of time? And can you give me the time of a meter?
Motion is the causal force or function, traversing a meter is causal to the creation of time, motion is in space and if at a steady rate, causes the emerge of time (a duration) which can be associated with that meter. That is the definition of a world line , IMO.
Current theories are the best we have so far, true. Being civil in discussions about theories, hypotheses, or speculations is a matter of style, I guess.