Thales Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 You need to reread my posts. I said it has not been accurately measured. The hubble constant is the expansion rate. You have been claiming it was c and I have been trying, patiently, to illude to the fact that the ball park figure is sub c. My arguements against your 'prediction' hold regardless of the choice of the expansion being c or above. I am aware you are presenting another theory, I am afterall a working scientist. If you reread, objectively, the critiques of your theory you should be aware that you have failed to adress most of them. Arguing any futher to save face on this topic will not gain you much standing in the eyes of others. It is those who can admit when they are wrong, or at least not entirely correct, that learn much faster and are (by logical extension) much more intellegent in my eyes. As I said before, you might be onto something. But you have not explained or proven anything other than a simple quantative guess. There is rigourous scienctific research in this field and to presume that your theory is undefeatable is an insult to the many researchers trying to prove their theories relating to this matter. You can quote me and others all you like but the context in which I made them holds and if you understand the overall jist of what it is I am trying to say to you, you will progress more than if you simply disbelieve based on your 'hunches'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 Yeah, you're right, I was being arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now