Phi for All

Then it isn't part of the natural world science is interested in. If it can't be observed in some fashion, it's considered super-natural. You may have started at the top, but you missed many things along the way, which are now being pointed out to you. Dark energy density remains constant as the universe expands, while matter and radiation become less dense during expansion. Again, this suggests that while space can contain normal matter and energy, dark energy seems to behave as an inherent part of space. It isn't diluted as the volume increases.

This is the big problem not starting out with the most widely accepted explanations as your guide. You've filled in gaps in your knowledge with things you've made up to fit the problem PERFECTLY. It makes so much sense to you because you used exactly what you knew at the time, and it appears to cover the parts you don't understand so well that there's no way it could seem wrong. It's like you made the pieces of the jigsaw fit without looking at the picture it's supposed to depict. What you have doesn't match with what we observe in nature.

The true test to see if you're using Designer Science? When you can't explain the parts you filled in yourself. We see this all the time. "I know it proves my point, but I'm just not good at explaining it. If I could do the maths involved, you'd see I'm right!" I think the numerology crap makes these folks think they're doing the math. It somehow seems less like cherry-picking when it involves numbers.

Do you know why? Because you only worked with what you knew, which was limited, and you filled the rest in so it made perfect sense (but only to you). Earlier in this same post, you said: Asserting that space is made of waves is completely changing the definition. You can see that, right? But that's not what we observe. Dark energy is called dark because it doesn't interact electromagnetically. The big question is, given the new information you have now regarding where your idea conflicts with observation, what aspects will you change? I personally feel your misconceptions about what space is is at the heart of the problem.

I think the obvious compromise here is to start marking some threads but leave them open. If they attract bad actors, or other negative aspect arises because they're still open, we can close them as necessary.

Similar to the phenomenon we see here when someone fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've made up. Custom science designed with ad hoc methodology is an addiction for some.

As zapatos points out, most threads benefit from different perspectives applied to an explanation, and the discussions are better with more input. When a thread asks a question and gets a definitive answer we can mark [YES!], [NO!], or [SOLVED], it's not only a flag for students looking for solid answers, it can be a magnet for crackpots/deniers. These folks reply to these marked threads with pet theories that blatantly show they haven't read our [SOLVED] thread at all, and I can't see how those posts add to a discussion we consider [SOLVED]. These posts are usually split off to their own threads, so closure saves some housekeeping. Closing threads should only seem excessive if done far too early, or if a staff member was abusing member/mod status, or if there were more than one reasonable explanation to consider. If the OP asks and is answered and considers the question solved, would you still consider it excessive to mark it that way and close it? If someone is refuting the explanations offered in a mainstream thread, especially one marked [SOLVED], whether they're right or wrong, they're most likely off-topic for that thread if they have a different explanation. They should be opening their own thread (and if they support it very well, we'll mark that one too). If we left the marked ones open, I suppose people could reply with insights on how the answer helped them understand the problem. In anticipating the kind of reply to an open thread marked [SOLVED], am I missing something else beneficial?

We can't know anything trustworthy from this time, but we do know that the kind of extreme densities involved also involve extreme heat. IIRC, light didn't have enough room to travel until about 400,000 years after expansion began. Mordred can confirm.

! Moderator Note Closing this thread since the OP has since opened a second one on the same topic.

Isn't this a fallacious argument, claiming what he said isn't appropriate because HE said it? It's Hitchens, not Hitler. I think having a mission statement focusing on reasoned openmindedness from a man who was sometimes considered over-passionate about science is appropriate here. Besides, we can include something to the effect that, if you think we chose Hitchens to offend you, you're all wrong. We can use emojis to further demonstrate our non-offensiveness .

Most of the time it might take us a day or two anyway to get around to threads like these that are solved. And this is what happens in the vast majority of these situations. That's why I think they should be closed when they're marked [SOLVED] in the title. We're archiving the solution to that OP. We don't stop people from opening threads on similar subjects. If they're almost exactly alike, we usually merge them.

Or it's a way for a serious scientist to express dismay over your explanation. You have some obvious misconceptions stated as fact, and that tends to frustrate uber-picky science geeks like us. Some folks use the reputation system because if they said what they were feeling, they'd get dinged by staff for being uncivil. I wouldn't worry too much about it. OK, but how can space be both the wave AND the medium the wave is traveling through? Do you see the contradiction here?

Perhaps it's hard to explain because you're trying to make it too simple. Life is extremely complex when we observe it meticulously. But if you want simplicity, look no further than this: Life is simply more efficient at absorbing and using energy from the sun than non-life is. And no, you don't have "theories". Theories are the most rigorously tested explanations that exist. Theories are not guesswork.

Personal point of view? He let you know about the rule we have against advertising, and posting videos without an overview of what's to be discussed. There was nothing personal about it. Perhaps you aren't used to moderated sites. Discussing the points you want to make from a video is frustrating. Hard to quote, we have to keep going back to listen to what was said, maybe can't understand the audio, and a hundred other factors that hinder meaningful scientific discussion. Sorry, the written word is much better for our particular forum. Not your fault we're that way, but if you want to express your idea here, you have to write it out. Still interested in discussing your idea? First, what's an "energy wave" and why you think "space is energy waves"? Thank you.

! Moderator Note This speculation has failed to find evidence in support, and seems to rely solely on intuition and wishful thinking. Per the rules for this section, I'm going to close it. Please don't bring this subject up again until you have some kind of supportive reasoning beyond gut feelings.

I like it a lot. As long as folks understand that the meaningfulness of the last sentence is predicated on understanding and thoughtfully applying the first two.

! Moderator Note We need some clarity. There is obviously a language problem, but there are also some misconceptions that need to be adjusted, so posting a paper that predates those corrections is worthless. Please be more clear about your idea, or I'll have to shut this speculation down.

! Moderator Note Three pages in, we're still on the first question, and nobody seems to know what this discussion is for. I strongly suggest more rigor in explaining why any of this matters. If we don't get some clarity soon, I'm going to shut this down. This is wasting time we can't get back.

! Moderator Note We can discuss efficacy, but we need to avoid any discussion of your particular condition wrt a prescription issued by a professional. It's not the place of anyone on the web to question your doctor's diagnoses.

I completely agree. It's one of the hallmarks of an unreasonable argument. It's lazy, dishonest, confusing, misleading, and unscientific.

! Moderator Note Please don't use arguments from speculative threads in mainstream topics. One unsupported claim isn't evidence for another.

! Moderator Note Please go blog elsewhere. This is a science discussion forum. If you open up another discussion criticizing a different discussion, you'll be leaving permanently.

! Moderator Note Insisting you're right when it's trivially easy to show otherwise is soapboxing, and against the rules. You need to explain and support your ideas rigorously when they conflict with mainstream understanding (it is, after all, a collection of our best current explanations for various phenomena). You've had five pages to do that, and still cling to misunderstandings. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.

! Moderator Note Not sure where this came from, since the quotes aren't attributed, but this sounds like discussing another discussion. If you can't defend your arguments there, don't open other threads to hedge your failures to persuade. It's an intellectually dishonest practice. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note This seems more like a lecture about an unsubstantiated claim than any kind of news (especially science news). If you have alternative claims to make, please do so in our Speculations section. ! Moderator Note Also, you need to clarify what you want to discuss. Lecturing/soapboxing/preaching are against the rules. I'm closing this thread. When you can explain your idea so others can understand it, you can start another thread. Please support that thread with evidence and clear reasoning.