Leaderboard

Any increase of length of metal, besides from thermal expansion, is plastic deformation, isn't it. Would be a lot easier if he just said what he was doing instead of playing 'Twenty questions'.

OK, that's something that one can defend. Definitely not c^2

In linguistics, there is a subject called "implicature". This is the study of the underlying meaning of a statement that is not explicit in the words. For example, if someone says "do you have $5" they are not necessarily asking about your financial situation. Depending on the context, they may be asking if you will lend them some money, or if you will pay for coffee. So, when I asked if there was evidence, I was not just asking about its existence, I was suggesting that you provide that evidence.

I'm afraid you have mistaken a science forum for a science fiction forum.

Same question, what for some, who for others. I don't like being poor, yet here I am a pauper with a purpose, despite not because; if you pin your future on a someone/thing you run the risk of losing it/them (your meaning to live). That doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy what you have, it means enjoy what you can.

Not. Expansion is a scaling effect. Simple arithmetic shows that the means that the speed of separation is proportional to distance. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light.

It's tough, peer review, isn't it? At least you are not throwing a wobbler, like most.

How do you feel about: “that makes no sense and doesn’t seem to correspond to anything in the real world” We have good theories of gravity already, why would we need some baseless speculation.

This thread makes as much sense as weighing a picture of an elephant rather than weighing the elephant itself.

Here is an interesting article, pertaining to the many "would be's if they could be's" who claim Einstein is wrong..... https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html Why Einstein will never be wrong: One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html#jCp extract from article...... "To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears. The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html#jCp

What testable predictions can you make, using your thesis? How is it falsifiable?

Not at all. Just that there is no legal protection for ideas so claiming ownership is a bit futile. If your idea is any good you will get credit.

Side note: I am always bemused/amused when people make claims of "ownership" to ideas like this. I mean, obviously, you have copyright in the document but there is no protection for ideas. And, generally, no one is going to want to steal (or even be associated with) ideas posted on a science forum. To the content! Line 19 (thanks for numbering the lines it makes it easier to reference; but doesn't get round the fact you are breaking the rules) (Hmmm... the line numbers get changed when copied. Weird.) 1. Surely you mean the "minimum" distance. If that is the maximum distance and is based on time being quantum, then there are no measurable distances between 0 and this maximum. 2. There is no evidence that time is quantised and your reference for this (the only reference) is to an unpublished work by someone called Egerton. I would comment further, but I'm afraid the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me. You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). But then you try and apply this to the Earth, where we have a set of particles closely bound together by interatomic forces. I think you need to study the difference between a "gas" and a "solid". Finally, there is not very much maths in this short article. What testable predictions does this model make that would allow it to be compared with GR and/or the real world?

I can keep my vision 'blurry' far longer than any of you. So long, in fact, that it never goes clear. But I have damage to my optic nerves, artificial lenses, and astigmatism due to eye surgeries.

Understatement of the year. Lol. Definitely... that song sounds edgy, but I mean Daughter in general is indie/indie folk.

Again, i feel science took a wrong turn at the CP.......what more else do i have to say besides that? Surely you guys are bright enough to deduce some of the bullet points that would be inferred here. Edit: Here is the problem with scientific thinking minds, and why we could never see eye to eye. You dont care if you are right, as that isnt the goal of science. I put a challenge to myself two years ago to see how close to right i could get, and this is my best guess.

It is rude to tell someone what they said. What you claim is only what you read into my terse post.

It seems to me that choosing not to believe in a malevolent God, because it is more comforting, is exactly equivalent to believers in a benevolent, rational God who offers eternal life. Both are based upon desire, not logic. I'm an equal opportunity non-believer.

Then there is no conversation is there... you can't just state "Marsians did it" or "I can fly with the power of my mind" without presenting some kind of evidence - especially here on a science site. Present your evidence or get off of the stage! Boooo!

Taking 2 years to make something up doesn't make it more plausible than something invented in 30 seconds.

What you feel is irrelevant in this case. You keep on telling us that we should trust you and that you feel that science took a wrong turn and now you tell us to deduce things from your utter nonsense which you insist you have data/evidence on but refuse to give it. That is not how we roll here buddy.

Nobody cares about your feelings or beliefs. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to present some evidence. You are unable to do that and so your beliefs can be dismissed as baseless. That is not a problem with scientific thinking (after all, it has been shown to work). It is a problem with you (and other religious people) who think their guesses are as valid as objective evidence. Hint: they aren't. How do you know that? You are going from making up fairy stories to insulting people. Not a good move. You mean you decided to ignore what people have learned from science and make stuff up instead.

I did try. But I just myself wallowing in a quagmire of vague ideas. There didn’t seem anything specific enough to analyse.