WHR

This is correct, I totally understand that. But we are saying that past this area, we CAN'T see, so we make up stories about what is going on there, past what we can see. So from this point forward in cosmology, we can't do science based on observation. That is essentially what has been declared. If it isn't based on observation, then is it not the same as Alice in Wonderland?

From Wikipedia : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe Wow, there it is in black and white. We put ourselves in the center of the universe. Pictures say 1000 words. Now I know this isn't some sort of oversight that astronomers just forget to mention. It is quite obvious that observable universe is clearly defined by our most sensitive telescopes. So in reality, we are making predictions about the universe with not much more than a rock that we threw up into the sky.

Tar, thank you for that very well thought out reply. But I've never made a claim that the big bang happened somewhere else. I would assume an event that had an outward expanse from a point of absolute compactness... Is the idea not that the entire universe, all the subatomic particles, had the space between them completely "sucked out" (so to speak) so actually space itself exists nowhere, not even a crevice between a quark or a neutrino...one big lump of silly puddy ready to be stretched out and made into whatever happens to pop out. Therefore we would have it that when the universe grew in size (let's say the moment that It was 1000 fold bigger than the original singularity) then the "area" that the singularity originally occupied would be somewhere within the new larger area. It would never be outside of that area. Where am I going astray? And can you point to where I claimed the singularity ever fell outside of the universe (the physical universe)...If you are referring to a topic I started on spacetime, the 2D modeling of it, then your assessment would be incorrect. I never said that the singularity was someWHERE outside of the universe. I said it was "someWHEN". Outside of our present universe. I don't think that is a statement that has been questioned. The problem is that I am trying to think of the universe as not just the physical, but also the chronological, and that they are one in the same (spacetime). This took the original topic off course, I was replying to Tar's comment. Btw again thank you for conversing with me politely!!!

You can not deduce anything from such a rediculous statement. But I can come close. How about this sentence. A resistor creates heat. This sentence is absolutely false. You MUST add the qualifier that power be applied for the sentence to not be false. As I said, a resistor in a deenergized state will produce no heat. Whereas, you do not need the qualifier when saying, resistance creates heat. At least not with anyone trained in electronics. They understand that the application of power is implied by the statement. They MAY take the statement that a resistor creates heat without analyzing it and agree. But if you put the two sentences side by side and asked them to identify the false statement, they would realize that the resistOR statement has to be false because they could point to a shop drawer full of resistors at room temperature. However, when they visualize that "resistance" is a part of ohms law and that the power must be part of the equation they will see the reality. Impedance creates heat. This is also a statement that can be agreed upon. Impedance is the sister of resistance. I would have said cousin but I think their relationship is closer it is absolutely 100% certain that impedance can only occur in an energized circuit, and not only this, but Since impedance is frequency specific we must also know that part of the equation. There must be a collapsing and building magnetic field generated around an inductor or a capacitor building an e_field as charges collect on the plates and then discharge. Otherwise, a coil is just a shorted piece of copper and a capacitor is an open circuit. That is why impedance cant be measured with a DC source. Again, the impedance can be predicted, just like I can predict that if I mix certain portions of eggs, flour, sugar, milk, and chocolate flavoring in a bowl and stick it in the oven, and bake for X amount of time at Y temperature, that I'll have a chocolate cake. But I would not call the batter or the ingredients chocolate cake. . As far as the measurement technique you eluded to, the Johnson-nyquist noise, this is still I'm sorry to say an inference. It may be an accurate one, just as its accurate to calculate known variables about copper wire, transformer cores, lengths, temperatures, etc and predict that a coil will behave a certain way. If this were not possible, then manufacturing would be a fruitless endeavor. However, assigning this value assumes that the coil will be in a circuit. It assumes certain conditions of the circuit. All of this is prediction based on measurement of other variables, not the variable itself that we wish to measure.

I can in principle CALCULATE the resistance of a copper wire based on the length of the conductor and it's gauge and the known properties of copper at a certain temperature. Assuming a certain purity level in the copper I might add. I cannot however measure it directly, anything else would be an inference. And unless you are a magician, I do not know of another method that doesn't require a certain amount of voltage, even with a high impedance digital meter. The other stuff is in effect semantics. Again verbage and not science. Math tells the complete story. Last example on the falling tree. Let's assume we wanted to know the resistance of the air underneath the tree as it falls. One could calculate the density of the air within the arc of the fall and the surface area of the tree. This is similar to knowing the length and gauge of the wire. I can then infer what the resistance of the event would be. Without the event there will be no resistance. Only air density and tree surface area. The action of falling must be mated to this Other variables to establish resistance. Let's take the word resistance and use it in a sentence, since we insist on analyzing this with language. "Resistance creates heat". I'm certain that this is a statement that you can agree with. I didn't even add a qualifier about the circuit conditions. Yet, the circuit conditions are not debatable. There has to be power applied to the resistor for heat to occur and be detected. A deenergized resistor will not self heat. So if resistance is truly a term that is independent of circuit conditions, then the term "resistance creates heat" is false. Language trips you up. Yes, I'm fully aware that in the tree mind experiment that the variables can all be figured up, written down, and a prediction can be made. But again they are all independent variables until the action brings them all together. Wind resistance of an aerodynamic object can be surmised by known variables, but there is no resistance until there is something (wind) to resist. If you push against me, it is the act of pushing back and countering with resistance that defines the resistances. Or I could choose not to resist. If I am unable to resist an ice cream cone with all the fixings, it would follow that I actually consumed it. If I did resist the urge, I didn't consume it. Either way, there is an action, a decision tree, and a course. If I never saw the cone, then I didn't resist anything. A much looser metaphor but it fits with the error of language. BTW I have a very nice photo of my DVM measuring 60 Hz of E-Field in my office with the leads in midair, with another photo showing zero Hz with the leads shorted. But this app will not at this time let me upload. I think I need to do it from home. There is also a voltage being picked up, just a few milliivolts but it drops to zero as well when the leads short.

I don't think you got the point. Lol

Define observable universe. Is the observable universe limited by technology? I would ask this because as far as I know, nobody has claimed that we've built the most sensitive telescope possible. If the observable universe is apt to be expanded with advances in technology, then I would question what business we have claiming with any certainty what is happening beyond what our "eyes" can see. As far as 200 million ltyrs goes, I realize that the observable universe, what we have been able to detect, is 41 billion light years across. I'm not an astronomer so I don't know in what direction the various furthest observable points are. Are they equidistant from earth? 20 billion light years away in every direction? Hmmm that would be pretty close to what I understand the age of the universe has been calculated to be... i.e. are we located in the center of this expanse? Or do we have a lopsided view and see more emptiness in one direction than the other? If we are seeing things equidistant, I would ask how fortunate we must be to actually find ourselves back at the center of the universe. Oh, I'm now very confused. You said that beyond the observable universe expansion is occurring at greater than c. Maybe I'm dumb, but how is something that is not observable being observed??

Absolutely not true. A simple antenna and radio can detect the EM field of that transformer, your meter at the utility entrance, even the clock circuit of a cheap computer or the switching transistor of a switch mode power supply will produce detectable EMI (electromagnetic interference). I can purchase a cheap tool from Fluke that can detect AC voltage in an insulated conductor and will light up within the E-Field when held close to it. This is a cheap instrument with cheap simple circuitry. Unless your house is very large and your utility pole is quite a bit distant, the inverse square law would not allow the loss of the field to be so great from a short distance. Another fact. I have an amateur radio license. I can generate an EM field with a simple dipole antenna, using only 5 watts of power, that can be detected on the 20 meter band on the other side of the globe. That EM field is quite tiny. We have detectors that are picking up extremely low power EM waves from the Voyager probe that is now past Pluto. Yet, you are claiming that I wouldn't be able to sense an EM field produced by a transformer only a few hundred feet away at most? I have very cheap instruments at home that refute that. Edit to add: I know we have went round and round...I think a better argument would be that we're counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But for the sake of argument, I don't think the tree falling analogy supports your argument either. During the process of the tree falling, we could measure a lot of things. Air resistance, friction, Force, momentum, heat generated, sound waves, etc. an entire host of things. Once the tree is on the ground very few measurements can be taken. This is because many of these measurements are a function of time. So, for instance, one Ampere is one coulomb of charge moving past a given point per second. For current to flow, it must have a potential. For potential to exist, there must be resistance. Mathematically this is all a function of time, an event with a duration. When you have a resistor laying on your bench (fallen tree), you make an assumption that the resistance will be X when energized in a circuit. However, sometimes a lead junction is bad, a failure had occurred with no visible signs, a defect in manufacture, etc. so until it is measured or placed in an operating circuit with predictable function, there is uncertainty. Uncertainty remains each time you remeasure it or re-energize it because a failure could have occurred. Certainty about the resistance value of the component is only 100% when under measurement and/or an energized state. This is why I check my meter leads prior to and after a measurement for continuity and against a known voltage source, because I have no certainty in the function of the meter or the continuity of the leads. And round and round we go Here is a good tutorial on EMI http://www.signaltransformer.com/sites/all/pdf/Controlling%20EMI%20in%20Transformers%20and%20Switch-Mode%20Supplies.pdf

By which the passage of current *is opposed* ---which indicates a state of being energized. If the definition said, "by which the passage of current can be opposed" then I would agree. Let's see this from another angle. A resistor is also a conductor. Anything that resists also conducts. One is the inverse of the other. Conductance is measured in Mhos. You would not say that a long piece of wire is conducting unless it is part of a circuit. it can be "used as" a conductor. We know this because of the accepted electrical properties of copper, gold, or aluminum. You and I can also be used as conductors, but really we are just the atoms of our constituents and nothing more. We can predict what the conductance of a particular gauge piece of wire of a particular length will be, and inversely what it's resistance will be. But I say "will be", because without potential and current applied, it is just a lump of atoms of metal with properties that can be predicted. I stick to my guns. If mathematics is the language of science, then Ohms law tells us what resistance is. Using an online dictionary or even a website tutorial is not ideal or absolute because spoken English is not the language of science. And besides, this thread started in context of the use of a measuremeny tool, a DVM, which by definition can only function with voltages and currents produced by the battery in the case of resistance measurements, or produced by a circuit in the case of voltage and current measurement. Therefore, the voltages detected by a DVM on the DC scale are real. They may in fact be a function of capacitance of the leads. That is something I neglected to agree with but also, there are in fact potential differences between every object in space which are in a constant state of flux. Voltage itself is a very relative term. A positive battery post on a 9 volt battery has +9 volts of potential with respect to its negative terminal, but it has -3 volts of potential with the positive terminal of a 12 volt battery. An electronic device designed to run off of 9 volts can easily operate within specifications when connected to a 1009 volt source at the positive and a 1000 volt sorce at the negative.

In pure technical terms, nothing "has resistance". Things "offer resistance". Therefore, technically, no. A resistor doesn't offer resistance until it is applied to a circuit. If not in a circuit, it might as well be a Christmas ornament. We can know what the value of the resistance would or should be when and if voltage is applied to it, to a margin of tolerance. We call it a "resistor" because we know what it would or should do when applied to a circuit. However, it isn't a resistance until placed in a circuit and doing what is predicted. Just as a light bulb isn't a light or lighting something until it is energized.

Sure. Resistance is defined in electrical terms by a component's characteristic of hindering electrical current flow. Electrical current cannot flow without potential energy, and potential energy cannot exist without a differential. That differential being resistance. They are 3 necessary elements of the same phenomenon. You cannot measure a voltage without a voltage drop...and a voltage drop requires resistance. Conversely, you cannot measure resistance without voltage and current. Use basic physics as a tool to see this. A rock resting on a hill has potential energy. The hill itself resists said potential energy. The rock rolling down the hill is the realization of said potential. Take any one of the ingredients away and you do not have anything to discuss. A boulder or rock in space would have no potential. A hill by itself offers no resistance without something resting upon it to resist. And obviously, without the boulder there to roll, the release of potential will never be realized in the act of rolling. This is all demonstrated in the formula e=I x R Or R=E/I There you see? Mathematically expressed. Resistance Is voltage (electromotive potential) divided by I (which represents current or amperes). This is the mathematical expression of the reality. Without the potential and the current, there is no resistance. This is called Ohm's law. A multimeter works off this principal. The battery is used as a voltage source for resistance measurements. Voltage and current measurements are made with a resistance bridge or various other methods with digital circuits. But all 3 elements are required for the meter to function. Impedance is a whole topic in itself, requiring an understanding of reactance. Impedance is a function of frequency in an AC circuit, so a simple meter can't measure the impedance of a coil or capacitor without special add-on circuits and a working knowledge of the circuit that the component is functioning in.

If it is outside the observable universe it can't effect us (snip) If our observable boundary of clusters and various other bodies of matter are expanding.... And somewhere outside our boundary of observable matter, if it exists, another cluster-cluster of galaxies and matter is also expanding, but not moving away from us, but instead possibly moving toward us... It is inconsequential (and can't effect us) only because light moves faster than gravity?? So we have to see it for it to matter? if we can't see it, it can't be moving toward us? And if what you are saying is logical, which it isn't, how does gravity hold things that are within the 200 million ltyr boundary together? As far as I know, 200 million light years would also be out of gravity's reach if the speed of light is the defining boundary. Does gravity move faster than the speed of light within that boundary? But if you do want to speculate...snip Science is about asking questions, I doubt one thread on this website hasn't had a healthy dose of question asking when confronted with observations. If not, it should. Otherwise I may as well go talk to a Bishop.

So gravity is stronger than anything closer than 200 million lyrs apart....this is the official threshold, and universal? No exceptions? So the ultimate doom of the universe is to be a bunch of black holes more than 200 million lyrs part, with expansion steadily increasing that distance. Because logic would dictate that all these clusters that are not flying apart will be overcome by gravity and consume themselves. Question. What evidence do we have that there isn't a higher order of matter clumping that goes beyond galactic clusters...lets call these galactic cluster-clusters...that are bigger than the observable universe. That in fact, the observable universe only fits into one galactic cluster-cluster...but our neighboring galactic cluster-cluster is actually getting closer to us at an accelerating rate (negating the opposite expanding observation) and as a whole, the universe is in balance. Is it speculation to assume the universe is larger than we can observe? I guess so, just like it was speculation that there was more to the universe than our own galaxy before telescopes could discern other galaxies.

There are perfectly good explanations for that there is a potential voltage between every point in space. The larger the potential voltage, the more likely for a current or a spark to occur. Nonetheless the potentials exist. If you take a resistance measurement between any two given points (let's say on the surface of your skin) you will not read infinity. You will read Megohms of resistance, thus there is also a voltage present. Resistance does not exits without potential. This is also why you shouldn't handle sensitive components like CMOS devices without taking static precautions. This basic principle applies with DC meters, with AC meters you will often see a mV reading and if your meter has a Hertz scale, you might find that your probes in midair will read so many mV at 60 (or 50 in some countries) Hertz. You are reading the EM field generated by various things like the ballasts in lamps, the transformer near your home or building, all the electronic devices in your vicinity, and even the wiring in your home or building. Again, as long as there is potential, one lead is picking up a stronger EM force than the other, and as long as that field is alternating, you will see an AC reading and it will be measurable in cycles per second...related to the predominant source in the vicinity, the power grid!

Humans are too smart to figure out how stupid we are.

Righto! But aren't galaxies the things that we are seeing flying apart? I made no comment about solar system collisions, or even stellar collisions. The next thing up is galaxies, and as far as I understood, galaxies are pretty much the largest observable clusters of mass with any sort of regular geometry, i.e. cosmic "species" as it were. I do realize we have galactic clusters, but what exactly are we observing moving away from each other at an accelerating rate if it isn't galaxies? Are the galactic clusters the widgets that have decided to repel each other? Where is this dividing line being made?

No oxygen yet for fire, matter too dense for sound waves. No photons yet for light. When did it officially become a bang? If an observer were observing the phenomenon from a distance, what would he see, hear? would he just see a steady growing sphere that starts as a dim, almost invisible point, and grows to a larger dim sphere, then a larger still only slightly brighter sphere as photon creation prevails, then a pretty significant sized sphere with subatomic particles creating more matter, more occurrences of fussion, and this more photons and a brighter, larger sphere? How many seconds, minutes, or years have to pass before enough fussion reactions have occurred to trigger enough photons to qualify as a "bang" in the visible sense, and from a safe observational distance, will the sound waves ever reach you, even if the sphere of the universe eventually occupies the space within which you exist? I think it would be a big whimper in that context. Of course one would argue that space itself, time itself, are dependent upon the event, thus no casual observer could witness it. To observe it, you would have to be within it. If this is the case, then what would the big bang look like from the observation point of someone along for the ride? We usually see it depicted as an animation drawn from the perspective of an outside observer. Hollywoodization or is the whole mess only a math problem instead of a realistic concept?

The universe is expanding, all masses flying apart, accelerating. As spots drawn on an inflating balloon. Or a stretched rubber band. Galaxies collide...... Hmmm. How do galaxies violate the first observation?

I agree that the flaw can be a pragmatic one as it applies to modern applications. We have yet to reach the point where the limitations of truth finding are such that near truths or "as true as we can practically rationalize" are not acceptable. The reality is, any art, or doctrine, that teaches things ought to have a core principle that what is being taught is, in fact, TRUTH. Truth is not bendable. It isn't changeable (unless it is an evolving aspect of nature, such as social truths...truths that can change with historical context). Truth in the sense of "where did life begin" are not ambiguous. Truth in the sense of "how was the universe created" are not ambiguous. They are not "almost answered". They are not answered by half explanations. They are not answered by explanations that can be revised. If they need revision, or have that potential, then they haven't been answered. In fact, they are no different than religious dogmas of this is the case. An example. It is a fundamental truth that has been proven with 100% certainty that electricity and magnetism are related. That is pure science. We don't know with certainty all the mechanisms involved. But the general statement that "electricity and magnetism are related" is pretty much in the realm of physical law. Today, physicists are telling us that there is a material called dark matter in the universe, and an energy called dark energy. This is based on an imbalance in a math problem, an equation that can't be worked out without making something up to help. I read textbooks explaining it in this context..."It turns out that the universe is filled with about 75% dark energy". ...IT TURNS OUT. This is an absolutist kind of language. It denotes certainty. Things only "turn out" one way or another when they have been resolved and defined. We are LOST for a viable explanation, therefore nothing has yet "turned out" in any way shape or form. Another wall of text. It takes words to express thoughts. Thanks for the reply. A good example. I'm watching a BBC program on YouTube discussing the inferences we make about extrasolar planets based on a star's wobble, or periodic dimming. While that dimming observation is a pretty convincing technique...the documentary used the term "proof". Certainly wobble is nothing more than an inference. Inference does not equal proof. Yet we declare it as proven knowledge. It is disappointing. I just added to my wall of text. My apologies.

Is laughing acceptable? Just checking.

I did not read this entire thread, the first couple of pages were enough. Typist. I admire your intellect and your faculty for reason. You are also obviously a patient debater. Overall your argument is extremely convincing and at its core right. I would say that one point you SHOULD make and I don't know that you haven't is that the money spent on the LHC and the advancement of PARTiCLE PHYSICS need not be totally lost to science. There are plenty of valid research avenues where the entirety of that money could have been spent and knowledge would have surely been advanced. Genetic research comes to mind. Thousands of ills will most certainly be cured by deeper understanding of the genome. This is just one example of many, with extremely tangible benefits that need not be predicted. A grade school kid understands the consequences of their genetic dispositions. One thing that I would point out is that far more of a concern in regards to technological advancement with knowledge is our ALREADY TOO INVESTED dependency upon technology. Everything we do today is dependent on the electrical grid, satellites in space, sensitive electronics...and all of these things are at the mercy of the very thing that gives us life, the SUN. One very strong coronal mass ejection aimed at this planet will shut it down in 8 minutes. Forget forewarning. That's next to impossible. CME's are the equivalent of a cosmic tsunami. Gas pumps won't work, therefore shipments and deliveries stop and crop harvesting is thrown into the stone ages. This is just the beginning of the mass starvation that will occur in just a few weeks time. That pesky thing called thirst might get you sooner since water sources in many areas are pumped with technology. Perhaps understanding the Higgs particle will resolve this shortcoming of technology, but I doubt it. Granted, there are people working on this problem too, and perhaps they will discover an answer. Somehow I do not see us ever being able to shield the world and it's satellites better than the natural magnetic field does. And it is far from adequate in the face of a super solar storm.

This actually supports my point rather than refutes it. First, on an Internet forum, it is impossible to know the other party's level of training or knowledge. Even if it be self taught. Unless the other person discloses that information openly (and isn't lying)...therefore, it is conceivable that every last member of this message board is no more than a freshman year biology major and prematurely calling themselves a scientist. (without allowing a contradiction, I do not believe that a PhD is required to have a brilliant idea). How do I know your own level of training? Even if you tell me your level of training, how do I know that it isn't a lie? To be frank, because of the anonymous nature of the Internet, it is impossible to accept anyone's claims at face value. That does not mean that their thoughts can't be merited. That doesn't mean that a discussion with said person is pointless. It just means that taking their judgements seriously is a matter of personal discretion. This is why I don't "need" a thick skin and why I'm not debating from an emotional stance. I'm debating for the sake of debate. And I am fully aware that most people know I'm right, that the system is flawed and could be better. That doesn't mean it isn't great. But greatness should always strive to identify its weaknesses and be better. As I've pointed out, science in a capitalist economy is biased and flawed from the start because money and prestige are greater motivators than thirst for knowledge. This does not besmirch capitalism. It points out the evils of the marriage that exists. But the debate will continue on this thread because Devil's advocate must be played. When something has succeeded it can't be tampered with. Even if greater success might come from the tampering. One last point about science and exonomics/politics. If you look at the space race of the cold war, a perfect example can be found. The USSR actually had a superior space program from the start. Scientists within their system MAY have received small accolades and even smaller compensation...but the pride of their work (and probably fear of failure) motivated them more. OTOH, NASA depended on contracts with aerospace companies and budget minded legislation to kick itself off. It took a challenge from Kennedy that struck at the pride, spirit, and ethic of the public to spark the motivation for Apollo. At this point, economics became less of an issue, the spirit of accomplishment became the driving force. Once the race was over, economics kicked back in, and the space program pretty much stagnated into low orbit science fair experiments. I'm being a bit harsh but I'm very critical of the failure to move our sights forward and keep them there. The USSR did no better, other than recognizing the more useful concept of building a permanent space station early on and giving cosmonauts prolonged exposure to low gravity orbits. Science that will further the actual exploration of space by manned missions much more than the shuttle program really did. Again, I haven't complained about criticism at all. In fact, I've really yet to see a valid rebuttle to MY Criticisms. In fact, one could even argue that I've made a criticism in the very nature of the topic of my thread, and that every response to it has been a complaint, or knee jerk defense of an adhered to doctrine, etc... If you have a logical mind, you might grasp that!!

Replying to the moderator: the mobile version of this app, as I pointed out, combines everything together when several points are made in a row, causing the appearance of a long text when it was in fact several. I suggest an improvement to chop them up instead of combine them. Secondly, I was replying to the points. No I am not complaining. To complain would be to denote unhappiness. This conversation does not change my mood or affect me that way. But sadly, that mentality disappoints me. If someone points out an inadequacy he is a complainer? Then Patrick Henry was simply a complainer when he cried give me liberty or give me death. But OK, in the future I won't respond to someone when they ask a question or make a comment that may move the thread off topic. Actually I'm not offended. I can't modify the software to break up the two posts, so it is not my fault and nothing to be offended by. I will however point out that published scientific articles can be quite long and mind numbingly technical and sometimes boring. If someone can't hold their attention on a 2 or 3 thousand word Internet posting, I find it difficult to comprehend that they have any place discussing big ideas. No offense really, but that's how I call it. And btw, I've only seen ideas presented and then responded to in the way that this thread was immediately responded to, i.e. "FAIL"...I've never heard of an idea posted on the Internet making it further than this (unless you can cite a progression in a field of science that uses an Internet discussion in its appendix, I'm unaware of any). This tells me that 99.9% of discussions are met with the same sort of immediate reply and only proceed when the poster has the desire to "complain" about it

I recently read an extremely interesting idea that was proposed by some anonymous individual as a topic of discussion, not here but elsewhere. The idea related to the dark energy, accelerating universe problem. This individual reckoned that we have accepted the idea that gravity, as modeled by Einstein, is a curve in spacetime created by the mass of a body. The greater the mass, the deeper the curve and the further the radius of its effects. We've all seen the Homer Simpson cartoon and others like It that elegantly animates this concept. This individual proposed something that he didn't give a name to but I will. I'm going to call it antigravity (that's not a new word but the idea is brilliant and might actually be worthy of that name). He pondered if the opposite of an intdention caused by massive bodies might exist at the center of the universe, at the location in spacetime where the big bang supposedly happened. We will call his idea the "big bump". Now he made the mistake (i think) of sort of centralizing this "bump" and confining it in size. But the thrust of his concept was that all the matter in the universe is repelled by it, sort of how a ball rolls down hill. The opposite idea of mass creating an intdention in spacetime. I would revise his idea to say that the entire universe, If it indeed has physical boundaries, is one big gradually curved hemisphere. The center of the hemisphere is where the curvature is slightest, and is also the point in the history of spacetime where the universe was youngest, so the acceleration was not sharp...however, as the universe has expanded it has reached a place in the curvature where total the intdention of gravity by all the mass of the universe does not equal the pitch of the curvature, so that acceleration is surpassing the combined force of gravity and mass. This is a very elegant idea!!!!! And the thing that strikes me about it is that I read it on the internet, saw a little merit in it, added a little more reason and thought to it by doubling the brain power, and made it a little better, more fitting with what I understand about the observable cosmos. Imagine if 100 bright minds took this problem and Worked with it. Perhaps someone would find a convincing problem with it that blows it all up. But what if??? That's the issue I take with the chains that we place upon ourselves. Does anyone have the courage to take this and give it some dialogue? If some day this idea found an audience, I would not hesitate to go back to the forum where I read it, contact the administrators, find the IP of the original poster, and make every effort to contact him and offer to drive him to the university of his choosing to take credit for its birth. But of course, the idea may be utter nonsense too. But it is extremely elegant and facilities a lot of thought! Questions that might arise would be, what is the cause of this curvature? Well, I've seen many a scientist speculate that the universe might be in fact curved and in a sense infinite, eventually meeting itself at every point along the way. These speculations are all just ideas that help us to visualize something extremely hard to comprehend, but they stir our minds to think. Perhaps there is an antimass in an opposite parallel universe that pushes against our massive universe at its center. Perhaps this opposite universe is in fact undergoing a big crunch with all of its anti mass falling in upon itself. Perhaps all of our massive bodies create little bumps in the anti mass universe that work against the effects of anti mass. Little speed bumps that keep the antimatter in check. It's at the very lesast an interesting thing to ponder. And one of the reasons I assert that forums such as this should be utilized in a better way. Oh btw, this discussion didn't get far, it only had about 5 replies and died. I suspect this is because his original idea of a centralized bump was not satisfactory...but the participants in the discussion were too lazy minded to pursue the core concept and expand it to something worthwhile. Have I even accomplished this by my added reasoning? Perhaps not! But perhaps I have. Without question, if I had seen a similar concept outlined in a book by Stephen Hawking, and his name was associated with it, I would have not been surprised. You see, this is the ultimate problem I take issue with. The search for truth shouldn't carry with it ego. Accolades are, in fact, the carrot stick that drives science in its modern form...be it in the form of peer recognition, the Nobel prize, or something as simple as a comfortable position working at a university. This is science in a capitalist culture. I'm not anti capitalist, but just as I think church and state should be seperate, I think the quest for knowledge shouldn't be driven by economics. It should stand on its own merits. Sadly, this is not the reality of today. Similar to art. The great painters, poets, musicians of history very often were obscure and unknown and were only motivated by their love for their art. I have noticed that my iPhone app puts new posts that I make when I want to expand on a subject at the bottom of a previous post as if it were one long post. I don't care for that feature but I will make do. Ok I want to address the conflicting points that have been posed by the latest replies to this thread. On one hand, the point of science needing resources, this requiring grants, large computers and databases, many people etc. I will reply that this is almost certainly true for a new idea to be tested. Again, pointing out that the truth is only being confirmed, not that the truth requires the confirmation...yet, it remains a fact that resources are an advantage to furthering science. This actually conflicts with the point made by the other fellow (I apologize for not specifically quoting)...that forums such as this are not appropriate places because essentially "we aren't here to do the legwork for you". First, I highly doubt that more than 25% of the active posters on forums like this are in any more of a position to do the legwork than I am. And of that 25%, most are too busy with other mundane things at their institutions, making a capitalist living, to pursue a briliant idea. Most of us are happy with our 2 car garage and white picket fence. The other 75% of people that lurk these places are Worlds of Warcraft junkies between the age of 13 and 35 without families or children, potentially still living with mom and dad...which of course is not a shame for the 13-20 year olds...painting a stereotype, yes. Sorry, but it's true. I know too many people like that. I myself am 3 months from 40, a single father with full responsibility of raising a child, a career in applied chemistry, a good career that pays the bills without a PhD, a mortgage, and no inclination or position to jeapordize my family's security to pursue dreams. Thus, I will never find myself in a position to pursue even the grandest idea in a way that gets me the resources to do it. I'm not a Worlds of Warcraft junkie, but I very much am a person who has his hands tied by my station in life. So I belong in that 75% category. Guilt by association. Btw I mean no offense to online gamers or people who haven't found their own way in their life yet. It isn't easy. The stereotype is only meant to point out how lofty a place it is to be a researcher at a prestigious university, and how few of us can ever attain that. Needless to say, as tied up as life may be for most of us, if we have a natural instinct for curiosity, a love for learning, and a passion for deep thinking, brilliant ideas can spring from the well of our minds. But we find ourselves in a conundrum. Do we write a letter to Stephen Hawking or maybe the Discovery Channel? Do we call CERN and ask for the smartest guy in the room? Bwahahahaha. Nah. We float our idea on an Internet message board. And this is where the conflict arises with the guy who thinks the Internet can't be a place to brainstorm and nobody wants to do your legwork. Well probably most people on here just don't want to break away from their gaming time long enough to go apply for a job, assuming they have a degree. (ok I'll quit being an a$$ now)...seriously. I personally wouldn't float an idea on the Internet if that was my expectation. I think the fun of floating things on the Internet is the interaction with other people who may be at least as smart as you and see what they think. The problem is that there is a cloak that must be worn on science related sites. You must either 1)be a real, employed research scientist or 2) speak the language of said scientist even if you are a high school dropout but keep your mouth shut about your background or 3) masquerade as a scientist...the reason this cloak must be worn is because to do otherwise is to automatically be labeled in the 4th category (kook, quack, pseudoscientist, bafoon, insert your pet name for people who think from a different worldview here). So, the attitude from the start is to ridicule. It is to declare an Internet forum is not an appropriate place to discuss interesting new science ideas (then WTH use are they? To sit around and pontificate?) to dismiss and lump every thought from the most bizarre conspiracy theory to a rough around the edges but intriguing idea in the same category and toss them aside...simply because people are too lazy minded, arrogant, or probably unqualified to bounce it around? I find this idea repulsive. I again assert that the Internet is being underutilized, and the ultimate end game will come when new knowledge can't even be achieved with the most prestigious resources available, and the only way to do it is to tap the infinite resource of the collective human mind.

Ok I have a moment. Answering your question is painful for me, because it's not unlike discussing the overall failings of the Roman empire and dissecting one particular facet, dismissing it as imconclusive, and then concluding that the Roman empire did not actually collapse and is still alive and well today. I do not assert that common sense is the only beacon of truth or path to knowledge. Nor do I dismiss that the scientific method has proven useful in obtaining knowledge. I even acknowledge that there is a certain aspect of how we deduce and draw conclusions naturally that adheres to the core principles of the scientific method. But I assert that there is a limitation to this, and we are nearing the end game as far as its usefulness as an absolute tool of understanding goes. I think that the fruits of the scientific method, technologies that allow us to share our ideas, and thus network our minds, such as the internet and this iPhone I'm using, require us to revamp our doctrines. A single mind working a problem certainly has limitations. A small team of minds working a problem as individuals with assigned tasks has differing limitations but limitations nonetheless. But all of the computing and reasoning power of the collective human mind networked together is a force to be reckoned with, of we could devise new strategies that compell us to utilize this technology to its fullest potential. When a Google search is done on physics or science forums for instance, a handful of websites pop up. I have for years read threads and seen a pattern. I've participated in one forum in particular that deals with an applied science that is a hobby and passion of mine. When interesting ideas are brought up, seldom do I see the idea discussed and explored unless the person with the idea can at least site 2 or 3 published papers that relate to the idea and at least indirectly support it. This mindset undermines a fundamental truth, that a new understanding can be uncovered without building upon previous work. Ideas are not even given a second thought. An Internet forum such as this is not an Official organization with a license to ridicule. I'll be the first person to grant that some nutcases will always come along and present topics that sound drug induced. Conspiracy theorists abound, flat earthers still pervade, radical religious and superstitious people have broadband connections too. However, a forum such as this could be an amazingly useful tool if the chains of doctrine were modified to allow the free exchange of ideas without immediate adversarial attitudes. My motivation for starting this topic was a "pinned thread"...pinned threads usually are pinned because they carry some weight of authority. It was called "how To spot pseudoscience" or some such nonsense. The very title being very condescending. One of the bullet points was that a claim is pseudoscience if it is being made by an individual who says he's worked out a theory. The statement was made that real science can't be carried out by an individual anymore. Implying the sole domain of science is research institutions, universities, etc being performed by teams of people. This is the worker bee model. The task of survival for a bee is too difficult as a lone creature, so they survive as a collective. However, other species easily demonstrate that at least a pair of differing sexes can easily survive, and some asexual creatures have thrived as lone individuals. To further this concept, I won't deny that the arduous task of bringing a new idea about nature to light requires a lot of work, a lot of discussion, repeatable data, etc. all adhering to scientific doctrines. However, the spark for the idea, the foundation for an idea, the revalation of an idea can be born from an individual mind...and his or her mind CAN resolve the basic tenants of the concept long before any predictions have been tested and the TRUTH of that idea is there without respect for the proofing of it. Something doesn't have to be proven to be true...proof is only confirmation, an excercise. The truth is the truth and would be there even without human beings around to analyze it. So, this cited definition of pseudoscience offends me, and strikes at the heart of the goal of science, which is to uncover truths about nature. It places an unnecessary shackle on the human mind, it shuts the door on creative thought. This thinking will prove to be the speed barrier that we finally hit in a few years when the pinnacle of understanding (theoretical physics) can no longer resolve anything. I already see an abundance of confusion, disagreement, and hoop jumping in cosmology with the whole dark energy/dark matter/accelerating universe concept. Nobody will acknowledge "hey, this crap just can't rationally be explained!"...everyone is sitting around on there hands with drool running from their mouths trying to make sense out of nonsense, eating the "fudge" so to speak, and holding their breath until someone comes along and sets the course back on a more comfortable path. That's where cosmology is today. And here I am, on this forum...my sole purpose is to propose that we start the process of cutting the tethers that restrict our collective minds. That we utilize this tool of networking to its fullest potential, that we discuss ideas rather than debate them from the start. That we acknowledge the power of one mind to have a brilliant idea and the power of 8 billion minds to master it.