Strange

No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. No wonder it is so painful trying to communicate with you. You can't put a probability on this. It may be infinite. It may not be. We don't know. No We can't. What makes you think that? Please stop this stupid practice of making up totally false statements. Our current theories work equally well for a finite or an infinite universe. If they didn't, we wouldn't say it was possible for the universe to be infinite. No. I am not going to ignore science in favor of your stupid made-up ideas. Absolutely nothing. That is true whether the universe is finite or infinite. Of course you can't. You are just deluding yourself. You repeatedly show that you are totally unable to understand the simplest things.

Sounds like a partial (and hugely inaccurate) description of one the laws of thermodynamics. http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/

Based on the Raspberry Pi http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cern-researchers-making-a-diy-cosmic-ray-detector-in-their-spare-time-cosmic-pi

He is either genuinely interested or is trying to put you off by making you realise how much bureaucracy is involved in funding research. It would be proof that you emailed it to them. (Actually, not even good proof of that.) But why does it matter? What is this obsession that "armchair scientists" have with their ideas being stolen? No real scientists worry about that - science is a collaborative enterprise.

I'm not sure that is true. There are "empty" solutions to the Einstein Field Equations which describe a zero energy universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model Admittedly, this doesn't appear to describe our universe, but it does imply that space-time could exist in the absence of energy or matter.

There are a number of versions of the big bang model (the big bang is really a family of theories, rather than a single theory) like that. For example, eternal inflation and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

It isn't an assertion. It is a possibility. There is nothing that rules it out, therefore it is a possibility.

That seems very unlikely. You will need to provide a specific example before I believe you. I can't see any of your threads in Trash (which is quite surprising). And the only one that is locked is one of your pointless rants about the big bang theory not being science. I can't see anything where you claim the universe is infinite. Note: if someone insists that the universe must be infinite then I will point out that they are wrong; and if someone insists that the universe must be finite then I will point out that they are wrong.

Ideally, the microbots will replicate to cope with any volume of water. I can't see what could possibly go wrong ...

It means that universe could be (or could have been) in an unstable state that was not the lowest energy state. If you imagine energy as the slope of a hill, then a ball will tend to roll all the way down to the lowest (ground) level. But there could be a ledge or plateau halfway down where things get stuck: they seem to be at ground level, but are not. That is equivalent to the false vacuum. A small push will send the ball rolling down to the true ground level. Similarly a small push (quantum fluctuation) could push the universe to a lower energy state. This would release a large amount of energy. http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-what-is-the-false-vacuum-and-are-we-living-in-it/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum No, it just means that Mordred is not aware of any theories that cover this option. (Neither am I. But I have heard experts in the area say there is no reason why there couldn't be such a theory.) No. We don't have to have a theory for every combination of options. Some of them might not be possible. So, here you have the options: (1a) The universe was created from nothing OR (1b) the universe was not created from nothing (2a) The universe is finite OR (2b) the universe is infinite. (Note that none of these are part of the big bang theory, currently) So you have seen a theory that describes 1a + 2a. There are also theories for 1b + 2a and 1b + 2b. There may or may not be a theory for 1a + 2b. And maybe we don't need one.

Note that no one is saying that the universe IS infinite, just that it could be. Also, no one is saying that the universe WAS created from nothing, only that it could be. (And note that "nothing" in this case has the rather special, technical meaning of "false vacuum state". So not really nothing.)

Smart is not the same as education. I am sceptical that the test has much value for assessing either of those things. If you do badly in some made up test (which may have nothing to do with your skills in those subjects) then they may decide not to give you the job. I think the real reason for the existence of these tests is cowardice: managers are scared of choosing the wrong person and so pass the buck to a test. Then they can blame the test if things go wrong.

Nicely put. Too many people think that being sceptical means not believing anything, even if there is evidence.

Good point, I accept that. (That wasn't the positive shade of meaning of "provocative" that I had in mind.)

I missed this before (perhaps because of your inability to master the complexities of posting on the forum). I find it fascinating that you reject geology but claim to have evidence for unicorns. The problem with your threads is that you raise some potentially interesting questions such as what we can know, what counts as evidence, the role of science, etc. These have been debated in great depth by philosophers and they have changed our understanding of the nature of science. (It used to be thought of as a search for "truth" but very few, if any, people still think that.) But your understanding is so limited and your level of discussion so simplistic, it just reduces the discussion to a facile, "nah, nah, you don't know anything." It is rather sad that you think you are being terribly clever but, in fact, you are not mature enough to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

If you have someone offering to collaborate you should jump at the chance. Why would you let the risk of something that isn't going to happen (and wouldn't matter anyway) stop you. Wallace's essay was only published because of Darwin. Wallace had sent it to him as a private letter and Darwin arranged for it to be published without Wallace's knowledge (because he was still in the Far East). The essay was presented at the Royal Society, along with some of Darwin's work (so that people would know he had come up with basically the same idea).

Again, displaying your ignorance of what science is. We have a lot of evidence from, geology and other sciences for the nature of the ancient Earth. When were children we all played that silly game of "what if the earth was created 15 minutes ago and just made to look really old". Some of us grew out of it (or maybe you are still 14). But even if that silly position were true, you know maybe a cruel and dishonest God decided to fool us like that, it doesn't matter. Because science deals with the evidence we can observe and what models we can build based on those models. The "Truth" might be completely different. But as we can never know, it doesn't matter. And the nice thing is that science works, in other words it allows us to develop useful technology such as the computer you are using to post on this forum. Your bizarre brand of immature nihilism is totally unproductive and a complete waste of time. But if that is what makes you happy. <shrug> You are so desperate to be banned, it is sad. Do you think it will validate you? Do you want to be able to go to your friends and say, "Oh, yes, they banned me because they couldn't cope with my incredibly deep arguments." I'm sure they will be very impressed. I don't think anyone has been banned for immature posturing, so you have a long way to go. OK. So let's see. You are using evidence from the deep past to argue that we can't know anything about the past? Or is this just an argument from incredulity? "I can't believe this happened so they must have made it up"? Neither is very convincing.

But we have models that work. That is all science does. I don't know what your point is. I see someone so entrenched in his beliefs that all you can say is "no". You have nothing positive to say. You have no alternative view. You have nothing to contribute. There is zero value in saying "it could all be wrong" unless you have an alternative. It is just immature posturing. Science does not say anything about what really exists. But the same models work in deep space as on Earth. You haven't shown they don't. The "existence" of time (whatever that means) is not a question for science. That really doesn't make much sense. You shouldn't be so self-congratulatory when you haven't shown a flaw in any of the models science uses. He was talking about your baseless beliefs. What we know is that our models work equally well for deep space as they do here. You have repeatedly failed to show any problem there. It doesn't matter if everything we see from deep space is actually faked by, say, a dishonest God. Or if we are living in a simulation. Or nothing exists outside your own mind. None of that invalidates science. As none of those things are testable they are just childish speculations, and a complete waste of time. So why are you wasting your time on this? I assume you are a bored 14 year old; don't you have better things to do? You tell us. You came up with the idea. It is up to you to support it. It isn't. It is just childish pseudo-philosophy. I suppose it makes him feel clever.

As the rest of your post makes clear, there is no reason to think it was intended to be provocative. The fact that some people were offended by it is purely a reflection on them, not the pricing strategy.

We can. Your repeated denials based on your ignorance don't change that. Your English is failing.

Well, at least you have given up the dishonest pretence of "only asking". Is it OK to lie, in your religion? Is your God proud of you? And your mum?

Actually, the only "grasp" one has to have is a model that works. Science is good at that. You have no argument other than simply saying, "no". I suppose you want to be banned so you can use it as badge to show how smart you are; that is a typical dishonest tactic of your type.

Do you have a mathematical model based on "time is like a force that exists"? If not, you are not talking about science.

We can observe things in deep space (and from the far past) and compare them against our models. That's all science does. Of course it is possible that we are being misled and that a number of unknown (and unknowable) factors conspire to make our models work even though they don't reflect "reality" (whatever that is). It is also possible that the universe sprang into existence 5 seconds ago and just happens to look exactly like it was 14 billions years old. But neither of those have anything to do with science. (And they are not really philosophy, if you are more than 14 years old.)

Please use the quote function properly. It is very hard to pick out your comments, and even harder to respond to them. Thank you.