All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

    You can tell the big bang/evolution is a theory of everything. I keep using the term theory of everything but I want to tell you what it means, the "theory of everything" is a romantic idea about the universe and John Wheeler quote captures that romance. The theory of everything is a simple idea that given enough time, science will explain everything. You closed my thread, its fine it was a mess anyway, lets start here with a fresh simple look at things here. When I say theory of everything I am referring to the romantic idea that science, given enough time, can explain everything. The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?
  3. That is your opinion. But it seems to depend on using a different definition of “theory of everything”.
  4. The North Korea Problem

    Hello
  5. Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?

    It clearly IS how things work. Dream on!
  6. If only two points exist does time flow?

    You say every particle in your body exists at the same time AND time facilitates movement in spacetime. This is two totally different and opposite meanings for the one term, if everything exists at a common time and continues to exist at that same time, moment after moment as if time were flowing, then there are no individual times facilitating independent movement. You introduce timeflow into spacetime as if time facilitates a different independent movement for every particle but insist every particle exists at the same time, it is two opposite meanings and the only alternative is everything exists at a different time. I call this “investor blindness”, you are too invested in one idea of something to listen to any other, so of course at least one meaning must be meaningless and not mentioned. around and around and around.....
  7. Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

    The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).
  8. Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

    Yes, I've already mentioned that in his other thread.
  9. To me it does not look like a theory of everything. It looks like two different theories describing different aspects of nature. I beleive that a theory of everything would describe how GR and evolution follows, and is explained by, "the theory of everything". *)I usually use "theory of everything" as a notation of a theory explaining fundamental forces including gravity. In the context of this topic I am prepared to deviate from that.
  10. Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

    Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.
  11. They are two separate and independent theories. The theory of evolution existed before GR and was not changed by it. Similarly GR is not affected by changes in our understanding of evolution.
  12. Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything to me. It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it? Yes there are gaps in our knowledge, but the overarching story is tight is it not?
  13. Thought Experiments

    ! Moderator Note Here? Not likely. ! Moderator Note You don't have a theory. You don't have a model and there are no testable predictions. You have not fulfilled the minimum we require for this to be discussed. Until you do, conversation about this is off-limits. ! Moderator Note We call that soapboxing, which is against the rules. Go start up a blog if you want to tease people with sleight of hand.
  14. Linear algebra problem

    The fish to be commercialized, has to meet four linear requirements on: weight, length, circumference. If p, l e c are weight, length and circumference, a linear condition is written as ap+Bl+yc-d=0 (a,B,y,d \in R). We acknowledge that there's no fish that can satisfy all four conditions, so we decide to edit them, adding with arithmetic to each of them a term like a,t for each i=1,...,4 where a_i are real numbers and t is the time passed since the fish has been fished. A kind of fish is the quadruplet (p,l,c,t). With this condition we are sure that at least one kind of fish exist that meets all 4 new requirements. Is it possible that there are infinite kinds of fishes that meet all the edited conditions? a) no, just 1 kind max b) yes, no matter how are the original conditions chosen c) if and only if 3 max of the 4 conditions are linearly independent d) Only if the new 4 conditions are linearly independent
  15. Ups... I meant "So I think that 'proof-of-principle' and 'proof-of-concept' mean the same"
  16. Today
  17. Thought Experiments

    How about some interactions and discussion with those of us in this forum that are interested enough to spend far more than one hour without getting paid?
  18. Thought Experiments

    Look, I am happy to look at your theory of everything (the big bang and evolution) and if you don't want to discuss mine fine, but be brutally honest and objective about your own theories. I am just happy to find agreement on the objective facts. Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything? It looks like a theory of everything to me. You are just making an assertion, its not pure science, its your opinion. You are not being very scientific.
  19. Thought Experiments

    In my opinion I am trying my best* and I hope other forum members corrects me if I fail. May I request that you also start answering my questions in a clear, consise way using scientific language? Or at least, in a clear and consise way, states why you think my questions are not valid in this context? *) I'm not working as a scientist in this area, I may have trouble to express my opinions clearly. English is not my first language.
  20. Thought Experiments

    If you had facts people would look at them. You havn't.
  21. Thought Experiments

    Please use clear, consise, scientific language when talking to me. And please don't bark orders at me, its not civil and a sign you spend time on the internet where it is perfectly ok be rude. I am ready to listen to you, regardless of whether you being objective or simply spouting opinion as fact. I am ready to listen to you, I have listened to you, you don't have to get all preachy with the evidence and the models and the pillars and so. Some people, I can tell, have given up on the hard questions and are looking for small science to make progress, not big science, lots of people have given up on big science as it hasn't proved that fruitful. I will tell you how this is going to play out, first I am going to start a go fund me page so I can get some money to help prove my case. This money, is going to be used as a prize for proving me right or wrong. I may employ someone, hopefully a scientist, but maybe not, to look over input from others. I hope to sign up 3000 scientists to give one hour of their time to look at this theory, that is like somebody working on it full time for three years. I will make the big reveal when this is in place. I think people need to prepare for it, for example, you have to come to terms with eternity, with infinity. So before you get to see the big reveal, you can explain to me how the universe works. Can you explain how the universe works without using opinion?
  22. Element-metal, the inorganic compounds of which would form the maximum variety of crystalline forms?
  23. How rain get so much power

    Hello How does rain get so much power that it can rotates turbine so fast
  24. Thought Experiments

    I think claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based is not necessary unscientific. Lack of discussion how universe is pixel based or what pixels are, that is unscientific.
  25. Thought Experiments

    Because it is an unsupported claim. Answer Ghideon’s question. Otherwise I will report you for trolling as well.
  26. Thought Experiments

    What exactly is unscientific about claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based?
  1. Load more activity