Michael F. D. Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 This is my predictions: - infinity of universe is directed inward, to absolute zero (as ideal), but not in meaningless expansion outward, so an object which was named "Black Hole" is Absolute Zero; - each object in universe exists at its Time Cycle (TC); - a value of TC of objects defines their energy; - all interactions between objects occurs in the manner of interactions their TC; - all known and an unknown yet forces and phenomenas are due to attempt of the change object's TC on the part of the other object or several them, and entropy is necessary element of evolution; - time has counting down from the initially installed importance of TC to a zero; - a count of time goes the discrete quantum of time Qt which corresponds Plank time; - Qt synchronizes TC of all objects in universe; - an universe exists in realities in current Qt only; - discreteness defines all advantages of the digital information system, which there is the universe, indeed, before analog system, as this is perceived by people; - all the laws of conservation are a quotients by events of the general law of conservation of TC; - "infinity" of space this is illusion, created by the Time and Light; - universe exists in reality in current Qt, in volume corresponding Plank length, that I named Quantum of Space (Qs); - speed of light "c" it is a single "speed" existing in reality, others are an illusion, so "c" is absolute. As you can see, my vision of universe differs from official scientific glance completely (it's direct inverse) and in ditto time does not disagree nor one result of the practical experience and observations. On my glance, such universe much more beautiful and intelligent. P.S. I ask all participants of SF not make the "killing" declarations (mentors also), before reading a corresponding topics. Thanks for reading ( I am sorry for my English). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 "Whut?" will continue to be the most appropriate reply to your posts The terminology you use will continue to be a part of something other than modern, academic physics Your threads will continue to be cast into Pseudoscience Modern theories will remain intact for now The Uzbek education system will be the focus of UN efforts to improve the worlds worst education systems In reponse the few items on your list communicated in an understandable way: -The universe is expanding forever. It will not collapse. Period. Please see the 'WMAP Results' thread. -No part of a black hole is at absolute zero. End of story. -How can all interactions be time-depedent when there's strong evidence gravity propagates much faster than c; which you see is the only speed. -Your theory still doesn't address what happens in intervals smaller than a planck time. -"all" the laws of conservation? nothing is conserved. (energy at one point came into existance) -space being infinte is empiracally true. There's nothing out there to stop the universe from expanding, and current prevailing theories put the size of what contains this universe and others at values that make 14 billion light years across here look infinitesimal. Furthermore, no theory you have put forth in this site examines experimental evidence and properly justifies where current theories had misinterpreted result, and no new experimental data has been provided to support your theories. Your posts are the epitome of pseudoscience, and I refer you to zarkscience.com to find an audience willing to accept theories that have no place in a community who wish to learn what's really going on in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone -How can all interactions be time-depedent when there's strong evidence gravity propagates much faster than c; which you see is the only speed. Bear in mind that we don't have sufficient evidence to state that; remember that both General Relativity and the Standard Model (oh, and the Superstring theories) assume gravity propogates at the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 That's why I said 'there's strong evidence' for it; not that it was true. The evidence is stronger for superluminal propagation than propagation around c, especially since the latest experiment to measure it was met with extremely harsh criticism of the technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone That's why I said 'there's strong evidence' for it; not that it was true. The evidence is stronger for superluminal propagation than propagation around c, especially since the latest experiment to measure it was met with extremely harsh criticism of the technique. Bad experiment that verifies it != Proof that it's not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Are you dense? I never said it was definately true or definately false, I just said one side of the argument has more evidence in favor of it than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Are you dense? I never said it was definately true or definately false, I just said one side of the argument has more evidence in favor of it than the other. You were criticising him for something that's assumed in all current major theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted June 17, 2003 Author Share Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone "Whut?" will continue to be the most appropriate reply to your posts The terminology you use will continue to be a part of something other than modern, academic physics Your threads will continue to be cast into Pseudoscience Modern theories will remain intact for now The Uzbek education system will be the focus of UN efforts to improve the worlds worst education systems In reponse the few items on your list communicated in an understandable way: -The universe is expanding forever. It will not collapse. Period. Please see the 'WMAP Results' thread. -No part of a black hole is at absolute zero. End of story. -How can all interactions be time-depedent when there's strong evidence gravity propagates much faster than c; which you see is the only speed. -Your theory still doesn't address what happens in intervals smaller than a planck time. -"all" the laws of conservation? nothing is conserved. (energy at one point came into existance) -space being infinte is empiracally true. There's nothing out there to stop the universe from expanding, and current prevailing theories put the size of what contains this universe and others at values that make 14 billion light years across here look infinitesimal. Furthermore, no theory you have put forth in this site examines experimental evidence and properly justifies where current theories had misinterpreted result, and no new experimental data has been provided to support your theories. Your posts are the epitome of pseudoscience, and I refer you to zarkscience.com to find an audience willing to accept theories that have no place in a community who wish to learn what's really going on in the universe. Summarizing all that you have said above: you reject , without trying to understand , all that has been new, as well as you despise a foreigners (from countries of the third world only?). In vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted June 17, 2003 Share Posted June 17, 2003 Most of what you said is impossible to understand, as it is not written in a language that anyone can understand. Furthermore, what you have said that was clear is wrong, as the burden of proof lies on you, since I do understand modern theories and the evidence that has led to and confirmed their existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Summarizing all that you have said above: you reject , without trying to understand , all that has been new, as well as you despise a foreigners (from countries of the third world only?). In vain. he is not rejecting it without understanding it, he is just saying you are wrong, and I agree with him. Nothing you have said has any basis, you have not demonstrated anything new, and there isn't even any evidence for things having a time cycle in the first place. Entropy and the normal laws of physics far better describe the normal course of events than ascribing an arbitrary TC or lifetime to something. Your entire theory adds nothing, predicts nothing, explains nothing and simply overcomplicates what already exists. Now go and find out about Occam's Razor as MrL has pointed out previously, and see why all the scientists here reject your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 This is not pseudoscience, it's just bad science. Game Over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts