Jump to content

coffeesippin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coffeesippin


  1. 2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    You claimed the Bible is 99.9999999999% true... not true in fact the very opposite is true... Again, The BB is not a subject that is taught alone, that would be like someone teaching one verse in your bible and nothing else... 

    No, I said YOUR understanding of what the bible is about comprises 99.+those other nines% of what the bible is about, though I should change that to 'what I know about your understanding of what the bible is about."  The King James Bible is 100% true in every word.

      In your experience BB is not taught alone.  Sarah told me she was teaching BB.  I suppose you might want to call her a liar?


  2. 43 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    You've already shown us you are willing to assert that which is demonstrably not true as the truth why should we believe this nonsense? No one gets a job teaching BB, The Big bang theory is a small part of cosmology not something you could make a living teaching... 

    All I know is she moved to Australia and got a job teaching Big Bang .. that is what she told me over the internet.  I introduced her to Pascual Jordan and his idea of matter out of nothing.  We didn't discuss it, she was a young woman, I'm an old man, she has a busy life and so do I.  But we're still friends.  By the way, what did I assert as truth that which is demonstratably not true?   

    1 hour ago, beecee said:

    The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space.

     

    JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

    We will know all truth someday .. and the divisions will have been forgotten.

    38 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that. People study a subject to certain level of expertise. Some of them then go on to teach that subject. It seems pretty normal and sensible to me. Do you object to historians, geologists, theologians, chemists, linguists, archeologists etc. doing that?

    One could argue that there would be a benefit of teachers getting some work experience outside of academia before going into teaching, but I can't really see it making a big difference.

    What's wrong with it?  Nothing if you don't want to discover,  if you just want a comfortable living.  Her summer work experience was great during her U years, with children up to 16, and her education is not over.   I told her Jordan's theory of a star coming from nothing, "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy."  That proposal that so stunned Einstein, who proposed a Nobel for him.  But Jordan had been a member of the Nazi Party, and worse yet his proposal did away with the need for BB, so he didn't get the Nobel along with other Quantum Mechanics founders and Quantum Field theories, he being among the foremost, according to history.  http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html      Regarding Sarah, what she 'knew' about cosmology, until I told her about Jordan, was the standard formula.  That formula she would be expected to hand down, and she would.  I don't know if she did personal research after.  Even though we will always consider each other friends, we don't communicate much, she may be married with children now, not working at U. whatever.  The summer camp was all girls', she was a Leader, I have an affinity with children, we had and have a spiritual bond, but she's far away.  


  3. 1 hour ago, Strange said:

    Ironically, for the purpose of this thread, Hoyle said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/512cde83-3afb-3048-9ece-dba774b10f89

    Thanks for this, Strange.

    "Underpinning it was Hoyle's belief that mathematics has an objective truth to it - but that truth is something that we as humans can only dimly perceive. What astronomers were starting to find, Hoyle believed, was just a tiny part of something truly awesome. A giant mathematical plan to the universe that we will only ever understand a tiny part of."                                                                                          I think we can understand most of it .. and the more we understand the more people will wonder how it all got arranged, everything seeming in its own perfect place of beauty and rest, with the flash or stream of a meteorite being exclamation points ..     '... and where did math come from?' Most people probably find that sense of supreme awe and wonder when looking at a clear night sky.   I remember seeing Sputnick for the first time crossing the sky.  Wondrous that man sent something up there.  'Can we go there too?" I wondered.  That Aristarchus knew what he knew when he knew it shows man's capability when not hindered by preconception.


  4. 1 hour ago, beecee said:

    The BB term was an analogy much as blowing up a balloon to illustrate space expansion is an analogy. It was the evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds. Time had its beginning at the BB instant...as did space.

     

    JC may not have been a myth, but his supposed divine status was.

    A few years ago I worked at a children's summer camp with Sarah, a young woman who took Physics and other stuff in U.  A lovely young woman.  When she graduated U she got a job teaching BB at a U.   What did she know except the boxes she had to tick to get the diploma?  She had no learning except U.   She told students what she had been told.   A normal education, comfortable, lucrative.  


  5. 1 hour ago, beecee said:

    Is it? Hmmmm...Maybe you mean that this so called "anti gravity"is an explanation as to why the expansion rate is accelerating. Why the universe is expanding is an entirely different question, and probably explained as due to momentum, as created in the first moments of the BB itself.

         

    The universal expansion is seen over large scales. Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies and even larger, gravity decouples us from any expansion. The same way the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces prevent planets, you and me from flying apart.

    I don't believe I am missing out on anything, since the bible itself is myth.

    Then historical accounts of Jesus are myth instead of historyÉ question mark`s gotta be fixed and now`s the time to do it.


  6. 44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    It may be published but that doesn't mean it is correct. It is based on an assumption about antimatter that has not yet been tested (although so far results are against it). It also depends on some unknown mechanism for hiding large quantities of antimatter.

    It definitely was not an explosion. We can be sure of that.

     

    I think that the thought and picture at the time was an explosion, and that was why it was named BB, and if you consider time as infinite it certainly was an explosion regardless of length of time thought to have been estimated.   But this is getting as exotic as the concept that the number 0 is impossible in physical reality, because 0 is nothing infinitely, and we are here, therefore 0 is impossible except that it`s used as a place marker that could just as easily have been a square.  


  7. 21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Strange has said it twice now, and you missed it both times. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please rethink your premise, if this is why you don't "believe" the evidence supporting BBT.

     I`ve seen the `BB is not an explosion` a few times in other forums, and I can`t understand why they are saying it wasn`t when what they are describing seems to me an explosion.  Hot dense rapidly expanding .. sounds like an explosion to me.   There`s also the problem of  `Inflation, which was added, in all I`ve read, because measurements exceeded expectations, the universe should have been smaller, so `there had to be a period of extra rapid inflation for a time.`   Adding what used to be called fudge to sweeten a theory cast suspicion on the whole theory, and I`ve seen Inflation labelled entirely acceptable, but to me it wasn`t and isn`t.   I see another idea as better.  Strange has suggested I put in in Speculation, and I`m thinking of it, but it`s going to arouse hostility and a lot of work, I`m not sure I want to endure the attacks, personal and otherwise, no matter how politely they are cast, which they normally are not.  Criticism is one thing, attack is another.

     

    29 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Bingo! It is and was simply an expansion of space and time itself, from an extremely hot, dense state from t+10-43 seconds. 

    If time expanded along with space how are you going to measure those secondsÉ question mark.


  8. 5 minutes ago, Strange said:

    But:

    So you are contradicting yourself again.

     

    Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

     

    I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence

    So you are contradicting yourself again.

                  No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory.   Published and peer reviewed.  Explains why our galaxy or group is moving in a certain way.

     

      20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

    I believe the origin of that model is based on the primitive idea than an explosion is necessary to cause matter to fly apart. 

    Wrong way round. The expansion came first (derived from GR by, among others, Lemaitre who was a physicist and RC priest). The fact that galaxies are moving apart from one another was the initial evidence for that expansion.

         Yes, Redshift indicated the galaxies were flying apart .. yet not all the galaxies, some were flying towards each other, but as a general rule the groups of galaxies seem to be flying apart, expanding the universe.    What caused that flying apart and expansion that was shown by GR?  AHA!! IT has to be an explosion!!  Because we have all seen explosions.  We have not seen the effects of anti-gravity bubbles pushing the galaxies apart .. so it is more difficult to accept.  

    7 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I didn't say that. I said the edict from the Catholic church re the BB and evolution of life, being compatible with the church's teachings, makes the bible a book of fairy tales. [well I didn't exactly say that, but that is what I meant in different words.] 

    You need to concern yourself with why the Catholic church finds no conflict with both the evolution of life and the BB.  

    And when it is shown to be wrong, science and scientists move on.

    I'm not a RC.  I'm not a Protestant.  I'm not a JW.  I believe and think as I understand the bible, not according to what someone tells me.  And if you take a thing like BB and Evolution as your whole opinion of the bible you're missing out on what I estimate roughly to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of what it's all about.  But that's just a rough estimate, not calculated, I say with a chuckle.

    7 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Yep, that's the thing....The BB and GR actually compliment each other and go together like a hand in a glove. [I was actually going to use a more crass analogy but gave myself an uppercut instead :P

    No sense punishing yourself, someone will come along and do it for you, so learn to box defensively, not to harm others, just to avoid damage to your face.  I say with a chuckle.


  9. 3 minutes ago, beecee said:

    It certainly makes a mockery of the bible. The simple fact is that they rightly realise that the BB theory of the evolution of the universe, along with the evolution of life, has so much going for them, and so much overwhelmingly loads of evidence supporting both theories, that in reality, it would be absurd to deny or reject either. But then obviously they insert the old "god of the gaps"  to explain the "before the BB" and/or whatever the true definition of "nothing" is.

     The bible does not say evolution did not happen.  I've studied it for 41 years and I see that nowhere in the bible.  The length of days in the Genesis creation were divided into light and darkness .. not hourly periods .. the evenings and the mornings could have been tens of millions of years.  In fact take it or leave it Genesis says the sun was not made until I think it was the fourth day.   '0' is an impossible number in physical reality.  If '0' was real, we would not be here, because nothing is nothing unto infinity.  '0' is merely a place marker, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, etc.  


  10. 4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

    Maybe this one?

    Jordan, P. (1971), The expanding earth: some consequences of Dirac's gravitation hypothesis, Oxford: Pergamon Press

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

     

    Ghideon .. thank you thank you thank you.   It shows a huge scientific interest in the question including this:    Paul Dirac suggested in 1938 that the universal gravitational constant had decreased in the billions of years of its existence. This led German physicist Pascual Jordan to a modification of general relativity and to propose in 1964 that all planets slowly expand. Contrary to most of the other explanations this one was at least within the framework of physics considered as a viable hypothesis.[23]


  11. 5 minutes ago, Strange said:

    But:

    You are contradicting yourself.

    The big bang model is a model that describes a universe that is expanding and, hence, can be traced back to an early hot, dense state.

    So is the the early hot, dense state that you disagree with? But the evidence is there for that. That is why it is part of the model.

     

    Is there any evidence for matter arising from nothing? I don't think so. (This was one of the ideas behind Hoyle's quasi-steady state model and there was no evidence for it then.)

    Note that Jordan also thought that the Earth is expanding, so I wouldn't take all of his ideas too seriously.

     

    You had better drop that line of discussion, unless you want to start a new thread in Speculations and provide evidence.

     

    During these discussions we can sometimes read emotion into something written when it isn't there.  We can avoid that by sticking to the words written.

    "In the 1930s, Pascual Jordan knew that a star could equal zero energy because its matter energy was positive and its gravitational energy was negative and they cancelled each other out. And this led him to speculate what would prevent a quantum transition from creating a new star. And he had this idea because he was trying to figure out where matter might come from if we existed in an always-here universe. Jordan's formula for that so stunned Einstein that he stopped dead in his tracks in the middle of street, bringing traffic to a halt to avoid hitting him.  The basic formula (though not in math) is on my home computer, I'm not home.  

    I've never seen anywhere that Jordan thought the earth was expanding.  

    You believe in that model.  I don't.  I believe the origin of that model is based on the primitive idea than an explosion is necessary to cause matter to fly apart.  That assumption coloured most thought about expansion.   Anti-gravity bubble expansion causing the expansion goes beyond that.

    What evidence would I have to present to start a thread in speculation?  I looked into that already and it seems prohibitive, especially considering speculation is just that, if there was evidence it wouldn't be speculation.   What evidence do you have to present to confirm your statement that Jordan thought the earth was/is expanding?

    Jordan was eminent.

    Pascual Jordan’s  colleagues — Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Fermi, Dirac, and Wigner — were all awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. But not Jordan.He was nominated twice in the 1920’s by Einstein, but Heisenberg and Born considered Jordan more of a mathematician than a physicist — hurting his chances. In addition, Jordan suffered from a severe stammer, limiting his ability to communicate to a wider audience.

    Jordan’s mentor, Max Born, was awarded the Nobel in physics in 1954 for his early work in quantum mechanics. Had it not been for his Nazi past, Pascual Jordan most likely would have received the award along with Born.

    Eugene Wigner proposed Jordan for the Nobel once more in 1979, but it was given to Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg for unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces — the winners were “three practitioners of the art that Jordan had invented” according to physicist Engelbert Schucking; Jordan died less than a year later at age 78.


  12. 17 minutes ago, Carrock said:

    Are you using a different definition from the usual e.g.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

    Is there a scientific explanation for this miracle? (i.e. pi=3)

     

     

    Somewhat different, the miracles in the bible are empowered by faith in God, but I believe the mechanisms can be found in science.   One thing Jesus mentions is 'If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, this mountain will be removed and cast into the sea.'   That is not a symbolic mountain, but a physical mountain.  Matter-anti-matter energies might account for a mountain lifting up and flying through the air into the sea.  Fantastic, yes, but so was Jesus walking on water.  Simply throw a switch, by faith, and opposing polarities may take effect.  I don't know a lot about polarities though.  I know very little about natural laws, but I know they are not immutable.  


  13. 50 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I don't see why you think it is preaching. (Not every mention of god is preaching). It is just pointing out the inevitability of evolution, given the nature of the word we live in. (That world was, according your belief system, created by a god; so I don't think you should dismiss the fantastic things and processes that exist in that world.)

         It's stronger preaching than I've heard in most bible believing gatherings I've attended lately, which is one reason I don't attend often.  I was happy to see it here.  It's the fantastic things and processes in our existence that confirm the existence of God to me .. that is preaching also, following your pattern.  My interest in science began before I believed in God, but was enhanced by my belief.  The creation stories in Genesis match my understanding of the scientific realities involved, it's just that you aren't willing to give my understandings consideration because you have a nearly impossible time going beyond Consensus.  I believe the biblical miracles can be explained by science .. Christ walking on water appears easy to explain for someone who has knowledge of effects in physics.  Science is FASCINATING to me partly because of the miracles.  The universe is FASCINATING to me because of its spectacular realities and beauty .. I believe science can explain those realities and beauties.  Science, I believe, can reveal the processes God used and is using.  

    35 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I am assuming this is the only part of that post that was yours (it doesn't look like it came from the definition of "believe" :) )

    it would be interesting to know which parts of the evidence for the expanding universe you doubt: cosmological red-shift? Or the CMB? Or what? And to ties this in with the topic of the thread (so the other mods don't get mad at me!) can you explain why either of those conflicts with your belief in god?

    And the only scientific alternative to the expanding universe, that I am aware of, are the various static or quasi-static models of an eternal universe proposed by Hoyle et al. But, apart from being falsified, those models would seem to conflict with your theology more than an expanding universe does. 

    So what model of the universe do you prefer and why? (Hopefully we can keep this polite and on-topic ....)

     

          Okay, now I see, said the man wearing glasses, myself, as the originator of confusion.  I appreciate your invitation to discuss.  

    When in a post made several days ago, that I said 'expansion' was an add-on to BB to prove it, I meant to say Inflation.  It may have been you who reminded me of the difference, and I acknowledged the difference, and was thankful for the correction, but you may have missed that acknowledgement.   I'm becoming forgetful of words as I age. 

    You may not think highly of what I write here, you may find much of it ludicrous, but you asked.  I believe in the expansion of the universe because of scientific evidence, so was not surprised when the bible declared it: 'the heavens and the earth flee away from the face of God.'  Revelation 20:21  It may have been one of the strongest evidences to support my belief that the bible is itself a scientific book.  I'm not surprised that Jesus walked on water because of anti-gravity, positive-negative, etc.

    I do not believe in BB partly because Pascual Jordan offered an alternative, quantum fluctuations, matter arising from absolutely nothing instead of a singularity, that formula which stunned Einstein as he was walking across a street, bringing traffic to a halt to avoid hitting him.  You may have seen the post on this I made yesterday.  There is also no statement in the bible that says God used something to create, other than his own Word.

    A sprinkling of quantum fluctuations across space time, or the sprinkling creating spacetime, somewhat as a sower seeds a field, is my opinion.  With stars arising from nothing, no Matter whatever, as Jordan's formula demonstrates.   My personal view of the mechanism causing the expansion of the universe is anti-gravity void bubbles growing larger and larger pushing on matter perhaps on spacetime itself, as is evidenced pushing our own galaxy or group of galaxies I can't recall which.   As the anti-matter void bubbles expand their cumulative effects multiply, accounting for the increased rate of expansion.   The bubbles would account for the compression of matter into the filaments of matter demonstrated in the universe.   I believe that what are considered Black Holes may actually be wormholes feeding matter which is converted into anti-matter into the void bubbles.  (the Italian scientist theorized anti-gravity void bubbles, can't think of his name, but I'll post this, look for that information.)  

    You'll see that while my opinions are based on what Consensus considers unorthodox the science involved is becoming more accepted, and the Vector gravity theory is one example.  

    I'll post this, and look for the Italian guy.   I thought of anti-gravity bubbles seemingly before D-Amico, or at least before he published, and I wasn't surprised in the least when his work appeared.  

    https://phys.org/news/2011-04-antigravity-dark-energy-universe-expansion.html

     


  14. 18 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Good point.

    In previous versions of this argument I have also included "a source of new variation" as another requirement. 

    I'm not sure I see much benefit in conflating the two; they happen on such different scales, rely on different mechanisms, with different levels of complexity.

    Of course, ultimately everything is just physics. But trying to explain the function of an MPEG player in terms of electron-hole mobility in semiconductors probably isn't useful.

    It doesn't say that, as far as I can see. It uses "ape" as a shorthand for "non-human ape". It says: "Both humans and apes belong to a group of primates known as the Hominoidea."

    Hominoidea: "Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. ... There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes. ... The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

    But whether humans are grouped with apes or not doesn't rally make any difference. As the article points out, we have a common ancestor.

    I don't think "believe" is really appropriate to either of these. One can accept the scientific evidence or reject it. I suspect that only rejecting it counts as a belief/faith based act.

     

     

    21 minutes ago, Strange said:

    "I don't think "believe" is really appropriate to either of these. One can accept the scientific evidence or reject it. I suspect that only rejecting it counts as a belief/faith based act."

    The automatic merging of replies makes for some confusion.  Is there a way to avoid it?

    be·lieve
    /bəˈlēv/
    verb
     
    1. 1.
      accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
      "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
      synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More
       
    2. 2.
      hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
      "I believe we've already met"
       
             I cannot accept BB as the truth, as I have doubts regarding the science involved in it.  Therefore I can't believe in BB even though it is possible for it to be true.

     

     


  15.        "So it would actually take divine intervention to stop evolution happening."   This is preaching, by a moderator, nice to see, but something I've been utterly condemned for on this forum even though I've never been so outright in a statement of preaching, and even though I don't consider any of my statements preaching.  But this is preaching.   Is moderator opposition to my position here due to a conflict of theologies instead of a desire to inhibit mixing science and theology?   The moderator who did the preaching knows who he is, and what his religious affiliation is, because there is obviously an affiliation for him to preach. Does he/she see me as an opponent of his/her religious affiliation, a threat to his/her theology?  I have no idea .. and I won't outright name the moderator as if I have a personal vendetta.  Can we please drop the prejudices that blind our minds? 


  16. 6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    While not wrong this specifically refers one specific mechanism, namely natural selection. While this was probably the first recognized mechanism, it is not the only one. In fact I think looking at the expected outcome makes it easier to argue why evolution is the expected outcome. Specifically when we talk about evolution we mean that the genetic composition of a given population is not static. The reason are those that you mentioned, but can also include stochastic effects. Especially in small population random elimination of individuals from the pool, regardless of their genetic composition (and thus, inheritable aspect of reproductive success) can shift the gene pool significantly. As such there are only few situations where you do not expect evolution to happen (e.g. the population being in a Hardy-Weinberg equlibrium).

     

     

    What effects do changes in DNA RNA through, for instance, radiation from the sun have on evolution?


  17. 2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    You keep saying you're not a science denier, but this is a basic biological classification. Study up on hominids if you're interested in learning something. This has NOTHING to do with religion at all, it's not a faith-based belief, it's a system of classification that's based on trustworthy observation derived from countless genetic experiments.

    I've probably said it already in this thread, but if you actually study evolution and the theory that explains it, you'll come to realize there's no way to stop the process of evolution from happening. If you think you can, your reality is wrong.

    "I said in the OP I mean evolution that started at the big bang, not only the biological evolution on this Earth."

    I wasn't talking faith based or God and mentioned neither, PHi.  I stated I do believe in evolution, just that I did not have to believe in BB to believe in evolution, as was inferred in the title.  It appears as if humans are apes, and live in zoos, but this scientific article from the  University of Chicago says we are not apes, that evolution continued, and humans are no longer apes.   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524141534.htm   Phi, I hope you will stop seeing me in your prejudicial light based on the popular image of a bible believer who believes in a flat earth and creation in Genesis done in 24 hour days, I have met only one bible believer who thinks that combination of things.

      I know very little about time dilation other than time is not the same everywhere.  Genesis nowhere says those first days were 24 hours, only periods of light and darkness.   This link https://www.google.ca/search?q=has+earth's+rotation+sped+up+over+time&oq=has+earth's+rotation+sped+up+over+time&aqs=chrome..69i57.19145j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  gives a quick glance at how earth's rotation changes in our present day, and while we can easily see where those changes happen because they are measured scientifically we can't know what the rotation was during Genesis because we were not here, and neither is it possible to determine the lengths of those days by science today.  You're as prejudiced towards me, Phi, as some White people are towards Blacks, and for the same reason, stereotyping and ignorance of the person.  It will be hard for you to break your prejudice which colours your interpretation of every word I write,  but I pray you will. 


  18. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    Why? you know he was a Christian... right?

    He was converted on the road to Damascus as he was travelling to have Christians imprisoned and killed.  Before his conversion he was a zealot among the Pharisees in hatred of Christ.  When he was converted he did not discard the Torah and the Prophets, but used them in preaching Christ.  And of course he and others were also writing letters and gospels which became the New Testament.


  19. 4 hours ago, Strange said:

    The abstract:

     

    Is there anything particular about this theory you want to discuss? (I won't have much to say, it is over my head!)

     

    There is an interesting editorial on the paper. No doubt some will see the reactions of some reviewers as typical of the "closed mind" of scientists. On the other hand, the paper did get published so there is no great conspiracy of silence. 

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a9

    The comments from a reviewer that they include are pretty insightful (ie echo my own thoughts!)

    Nothing in particular I want to discuss .. it`s beyond me too.  But it`s an opportunity to see input on it, thanks for yours it was valuable.  I don`t think many people see scientists as being closed minded, except when the Consensus becomes their truth instead of what might appear beyond the Consensus .. then they refuse to consider beyond it.

    I don`t see the review to be objectionable in the least, very positive instead, and that the paper goes beyong GR it seems a huge advance for science that it did get published.  `` It is indeed surprising that such a fundamentally different theory also passes the available tests of gravity without any free parameters, as is shown by the author with all necessary details. If true, this fact alone would make vector gravity a viable alternative to GR. In addition, vector gravity provides an explanation of the dark energy as the energy of the longitudinal gravitational field induced by the expansion of the Universe, and, with no free parameters, yields a value of the cosmological constant that is consistent with observations. Thus, according to this reviewer, vector gravity essentially resolves the dark energy problem. This is what we expect from a correct theory of gravity. Vector gravity also suggests a mechanism of/for matter generation at the Big Bang without involving additional fields and is free of space–time singularities, which is also remarkable.``

    4 hours ago, studiot said:

    Was there some reason for not publishing the abstract?

    And perchance a comment?

    That would make your OP comply with SF rules.

    :)

     

    There are 55 pages in the article, which seems well put together at first glance, but it will take some reading.

    But definitely worth discussing.

    I was particularly interested in his distinction between 'vector' and 'tensor' (midway down the abstract) so my first task is to find out what he means by this, as tensors are technically vectors but only some vectors are tensors and GR relies on this.

     

    vecgrav1.jpg.b0076cf280ca15feb0e9edafa1493e4e.jpg

    I`m new to the forum, there are so many rules written and seemingly unwritten it seems that it would be impossible to participate for a considerable length of time before learning all the rules, as some of them appear impossible to learn except through experience.  I was going to ask if just posting the links would be acceptable, but I`m in such bad standing with a couple of mods that I can`t trust their responses .. I regret having to say that, and it came very hard coming to that distrust.


  20. On 10/21/2018 at 6:38 AM, DirtyChai said:

    The Tanakh.  Or what I like to call, The Tonic. . .

     

    Now I know what my cousin meant when he said, "it's ok to have faith, just don't let it drive you mad. . ."

    Paul was a Jewish Pharisee .. he probably would have carried the Torah and rest of the Old Testament with him if he could, the law and the prophets, but how possible that would be I don`t know, the size those books could have been, huge, sheepskin pages, or parchment, though they may have been in scroll form.  Perhaps they were kept in synagogues and homes, and people didn`t travel with them.  He may have kept copies of his letters to the churches.  


  21. 9 minutes ago, beecee said:

    You can believe what you like...Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny if you wish.

    But basically speaking the theory of evolution is near certain and actually says we all Humans, Apes etc, all evolved from the first life form. The BB evolution of space and time is also overwhelmingly supported, so much so that the Catholic church has sees no conflict or objection in  accepting both. So yes, one probably could believe in the BB, the evolution of life and some deity or other that was the cause of the BB. This sthough is simply installing the old god of the gaps scenario, while science works objectively on how and why the BB banged.

    I suppose, Beecee, that you`ve heard of Pascual Jordan, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics.  George Gamow`s autobiography recounts how a Jordan formula stopped Einstein in his tracks as he was crossing a street and several cars had to stop to avoid hitting Einstein.  ``A star can be made from nothing if the star`s negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy.``  Singularity and BB are not needed, Jordan pointed to quantum fluctuations as the start of matter.  He`s an intersting study as his name is difficult to find some say because he had been a member of the German Nazi Party(as were many or most Germans in his day) and after the war he was elected to the German parliament and advocated for Germany to develop a nuclear bomb, so he became unpopular, some say, for that.  Or was it his formula that showed BB was not needed.   Moderators here may say I`m delving into pseudo science with quantum fluctuations and furiously ban me but Jordan was and is considered one of the FOunders of quantum mechanics.    I don`t know why this history should be condemned in these forums, but you will probably see the reaction. 

    On 8/20/2018 at 10:29 AM, mistermack said:

    I can't believe that you can't see any difference. It's a very contrived stance. Would Christians or Muslims equate their religions with morality, ethics, and etiquette? Of course not. They profess it as a profound belief about the nature of existence, and "who" they owe their existence to. 

    I'm not opposed to religion, if people choose to believe freely. I think I've made it clear that it's the compulsion, through indoctrination, that I'm arguing against. 

    All Christians, Muslims and Jews equate their religions with morality, ethics and etiquette given them by Spirit and Word by the God they believe in .. the one God the Creator and Saviour.   Many Christian Arabs, by the way, call God Allah, which is a form of an Old Testament name for God.  I`m Christian but was given a Muslim name by a group of Muslim men I met in Canada because I emphasized the need for prayer in our modern day.  They gave me the name Bilal, the officer of the mosque that calls to prayer.  The difficulty comes in deciding what is moral.  Consider the old question of is it more moral to die for your faith or to kill to protect your family.  There are Muslim sects similar to Christian sects which will not use violence.  In all those faiths a boy or young man or middle age man or older gets to a point in life where he either accepts or rejects the faith.  It depends on the severity or mercy of the parents to decide what to do with the son (or daughter) if the faith is rejected.  If you, Mistermack, believe it`s not safe for your child to cross the road without checking for traffic, you will ìndoctrinate` the child to stay alive.  Same with those who believe their faith is a good thing .. they will teach their children the faith, and pray the children will enter the faith.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.