- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
RE: Some questions partially answered, but no evidence proposed.
Submitted by donzzz on Tue, 2008-05-20 20:06.
Not only does that violate causality, but it also reinforces one question you didn't answer, namely what evidence do you have that this central region exists (counter to the basic premise of Relativity)?
The same evidence that you have for the big bang singularity suddenly coming into existence and expanding from the origin outwards in all directions - faster then the speed of light! That infers a central region!
"The Finite Universe Theory" is a perpetual closed system, nothing can disappear without instanteously appearing somewhere else.
Here are some questions I have about the Big Bang Theory.
Not only does that violate causality, but it also reinforces one question you didn't answer, namely what evidence do you have that this central region exists (counter to the basic premise of Relativity)?
The same evidence that you have for the big bang singularity suddenly coming into existence and expanding from the origin outwards in all directions - faster then the speed of light! That infers a central region!
You didn't provide anything that describes the mathematical properties of the Super Force or how we can detect it in the universe. The expansion and acceleration of that expansion have explanations that fit within the conventions of Relativity, so you can't claim those phenomena as evidence that the Super Force provides a better explanation.
In short, your response is so far from sufficient that I am unwilling to continue this discussion. Call me a stick-in-the-mud if you will, but I need more than platitudes to overthrow conservation of momentum, causality, and relativity, not to mention centuries of observational and experimental evidence that support those ideas.
Show evidence and provide the missing specifics of your theory. Otherwise its claims can only be regarded as outlandish at best and "crackpot" at worst.
And now, having drawn some more of Don's more outrageous assertions into the light, I leave it to others to defend them or comment further. My work is done here, as "Gadfly" might say.
[Final note: I just noticed Don has replied to Anonymous with an answer that includes a rejection of entropy. There goes thermodynamics and information theory out the window as well! That response also indicates that we live in the central region of the universe, yet Don has made no suggestion of how we can detect all the massless matter that is suddenly appearing here. This has now reached the point where I officially declare this a waste of everybody's time, and I am only posting this because it is already written.
If you've read this far, what is wrong with you? :) You'd be far better off discovering my history of physics in the Twentieth Century, Physics: Decade by Decade (Facts on File, 2007).]
That is the trouble with your "history of physics" Fred - its still in the 20th century - its old stuff - this is the 21st Century - it's time to move on.
Best regards, Don Hamilton
ref: The MIND of Mankind - Chapter 14
http://novan.com/mind.htm
