What in the sam-hill is meant by "Pre-Creation"? A pre-Universe? And, if the Universe was created by dark matter/energy, or perhaps more accurately, dark m/e was the catalyst that allowed the creation of our familiar Universe of stars and galaxies, what created the dark m/e to begin with? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What in the sam-hill is meant by "Pre-Creation"? A pre-Universe? And, if the Universe was created by dark matter/energy, or perhaps more accurately, dark m/e was the catalyst that allowed the creation of our familiar Universe of stars and galaxies, what created the dark m/e to begin with? <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>It's a word salad... don't even try to figure it out.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><font size="3">ZenG: we're constrained within the four-dimensions of our universe. A universe that was created at a specific point of time; that human-beings have determined to be 9+billion years ago. Of course, if our universe of four-dimensions was created -- then logic alone would dictate that other dimensions outside our own enclosed universe must exist. Einstein (using many of the previous discoveries of others) discovered the massive energy that was present in a single atom. Mathematics determined that mass and energy were equal in our universe; when energy was being acted upon by C-square (m = e / c-square). As you know, C-square is simply the speed of light, squared. Logic says there must be more to this tremendous-number; other than it being simply an abstract. If as science tells us matter only makes up 5% of our visible universe; then there must be a force that fits Einstein's equation. Science calls it dark-matter, or dark-energy. I believe they are seperate entities, and that C-square is dark-energy-radiation that makes up the 95% of the universe that science believes to be missing. In Einstein's equation, there must be a measurable force/entity that is interacting with Energy to create mass (this is what Einstein called C-square). The speed of light has been determined to be 300 million-meters-per-second. A photon of light has no propulsion mechanics to propel it for 9 billion-light-years to complete it's journey from the farthest point of the universe, to arrive here on earth. So, the photon of light (and all electro-magnetic energy) must have a means of straight-line dispersion. So then, in Einstein's equation, light being squared has no substance. However, when you realize that light is being propelled/carried by a force, then the equation is clarified. Mass is created by Energy / being enacted on by C-square (which is the force that creates an electrical charge between the protons and the electrons of an atom). While the electrons are being energized/vibrated by the straight-line dark-energy-radiation that makes up 95% of our universe. This vibration/energizing creates an ever changing variable mass; a universe with an ever-changing past, present, and future.</font></p><p><font size="3">Two zero-mass energy forces/substances were used in explaining the "rupture" of the enclosed vacuum of ultra-low positive charge energy inside the massive-sea of ultra-low negative charge energy. "Pure-energy" was used to explain positive-charge proton creation, and "dark-energy to explain negative-charge electron creation. "Dark-energy-radiation" is the ultra-low charge negative radiation that is eminating from the "dark-matter"; that our sphere, the universe is immersed in.</font></p><p><font size="3">It is incorrect to think of "space" as being "nothing", with the stars, planets, and galaxies suspended in "nothing-of-substance". "Space" is non-visible radiation. A photon of light is non-visible when traveling from a distant galaxy until it strikes the electron of an atom. Though invisible in transit, it still exists; just as dark-energy-radiation exists.</font></p>
<p>Are you using a random word generator to create your sentences? </p><p>Out of all that, I found 3 sentences that were correct and coherent. The rest were complete nonsensical ramblings.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<font size="2">derek, basically what I was saying is that we do not live in a static-state environment. We live in an ever-changing, evolving Universe; made possible by dark-energy-radiation energy. Dark-energy-radiation creates the vibrations of atoms that allows mass to exist.</font>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>derek, basically what I was saying is that we do not live in a static-state environment. We live in an ever-changing, evolving Universe; made possible by dark-energy-radiation energy. Dark-energy-radiation creates the vibrations of atoms that allows mass to exist. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Since energy and radiation have mass (e=mc^2)... you are implying that mass allows mass to exist. Interesting. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><font size="1"><em>The concept of a beginning in time is not sensibly and truly a humanistic idea. Because if there was a beginning of the universe their would be a infinite amount of time before that moment. Yet the universe could just have no beginning ( referring to it being infinite). Just b/c there is a beginning and end to our lives does not have to apply to everything. Another issue is that of light that travels in a straight line yet we can not even define a straight line geometrically speaking b/c its relative to the observer. The only way to make a definition of a straight light is from the fictiouse concept of centripetal forces. Doesn't that seem awkward?</em></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The concept of a beginning in time is not sensibly and truly a humanistic idea. Because if there was a beginning of the universe their would be a infinite amount of time before that moment. Yet the universe could just have no beginning ( referring to it being infinite). Just b/c there is a beginning and end to our lives does not have to apply to everything. Another issue is that of light that travels in a straight line yet we can not even define a straight line geometrically speaking b/c its relative to the observer. The only way to make a definition of a straight light is from the fictiouse concept of centripetal forces. Doesn't that seem awkward? <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>Whatever do you mean by a humanistic idea?</p><p>If you start with the observation that the universe is expanding and apply general relativity you can show, as was done by Hawking and Ellis, that space-time has a singularity that can be reasonably interpreted as a beginning of space and time. That is, the space-time manifold has a singularity at a finite time time in the past, hence a reasonable definition for time 0. This is a consequence of the general theory of relativity and indicates a breakdown in the ability of the theory to predict events very early in the life of the universe, say 10^-33 seconds.</p><p>We can indeed define a straight line or an equivalent. In Euclidean geometry the idea of a straight line is defined simply by two points, and a straight line is nothing more than that which is determined by two distinct points. This carries over in a straightforward manner to Cartesian geometry in the plane which is just a restatement of Euclidean geometry. The extension to geometry in Euclidean space of an arbitrary finite dimension is straightforward, and one can even extend it to infinite dimensional spaces using the notion of an inner product -- for instance the separable Hilbert spaces that arise in many settings, quantum mechanics being one. One can then use the techniques developed by Riemann to describe geometry on differentiable manifolds, and that is what is done in general relativity. In general relativity the structure of the universe is described as a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Attached to that manifold are objects known as a metric tensor and a curvature tensor. Using them one can define the notion of a geodesic, which is a curve that is locally length minimizing. Geodesic curves play the role on curved manifolds that straight lines play in Euclidean geometry. Light travels along geodesic paths. You will note this done without any specific reference to centrifugal force or any other fictitious force. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whatever do you mean by a humanistic idea?If you start with the observation that the universe is expanding and apply general relativity you can show, as was done by Hawking and Ellis, that space-time has a singularity that can be reasonably interpreted as a beginning of space and time. That is, the space-time manifold has a singularity at a finite time time in the past, hence a reasonable definition for time 0. This is a consequence of the general theory of relativity and indicates a breakdown in the ability of the theory to predict events very early in the life of the universe, say 10^-33 seconds.We can indeed define a straight line or an equivalent. In Euclidean geometry the idea of a straight line is defined simply by two points, and a straight line is nothing more than that which is determined by two distinct points. This carries over in a straightforward manner to Cartesian geometry in the plane which is just a restatement of Euclidean geometry. The extension to geometry in Euclidean space of an arbitrary finite dimension is straightforward, and one can even extend it to infinite dimensional spaces using the notion of an inner product -- for instance the separable Hilbert spaces that arise in many settings, quantum mechanics being one. One can then use the techniques developed by Riemann to describe geometry on differentiable manifolds, and that is what is done in general relativity. In general relativity the structure of the universe is described as a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. Attached to that manifold are objects known as a metric tensor and a curvature tensor. Using them one can define the notion of a geodesic, which is a curve that is locally length minimizing. Geodesic curves play the role on curved manifolds that straight lines play in Euclidean geometry. Light travels along geodesic paths. You will note this done without any specific reference to centrifugal force or any other fictitious force. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What i first mean by humanistic idea, is that the question of why that we ask and the point of view that i am aware of perceiving objects and in animals. animals do see objects , but they are not aware that they are seeing the object. So we have the "why" question over animals, and most likely we will evolve to ask a deeper more fundamental question than just how and why, and things of that nature.</p><p>Their is no reasonable definition for time zero, its become apparent in physics that pure nothingness ( what ever that maybe, if it even exist) just doesn't exist. Due to the apparent fact Zero point energy, ZPF. Along with conservation of matter and energy which can't be destroyed still hints that when we tend to find nothing there is always something there. Now let's touch on the breakdown of space at the planck scale, yet why would this occur? well if we use the De broglie waves of matter of classical objects we tend to get almost the same exact value at the Planck scale. Yet we use a rest frame for the waves in the de Broglie formula. According to wave theory their is a stored amount of moment in a reference frame according to its distance. Actually antiparticle come about b/c of the rest frame E=MC^2. As regards to straight lines you got me!!!!!!!!! I'll go more in depth with the rest of this aspect latter<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.... Now let's touch on the breakdown of space at the planck scale, yet why would this occur? well if we use the De broglie waves of matter of classical objects we tend to get almost the same exact value at the Planck scale. Yet we use a rest frame for the waves in the de Broglie formula. According to wave theory their is a stored amount of moment in a reference frame according to its distance. Actually antiparticle come about b/c of the rest frame E=MC^2. ...Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>You are going to have to do more than touch on the breakdown of space at the Planck scale. NOBODY knows anything about that or even if there is a breakdown.</p><p>And I have no idea what you mean by "According to wave theory there is a stored amount of moment in a reference frame according to its distance." This statement is completely meaningless in terms of both physics and mathematics. What do you mean and what evidence do you have to support whatevet that might be ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are going to have to do more than touch on the breakdown of space at the Planck scale. NOBODY knows anything about that or even if there is a breakdown.And I have no idea what you mean by "According to wave theory there is a stored amount of moment in a reference frame according to its distance." This statement is completely meaningless in terms of both physics and mathematics. What do you mean and what evidence do you have to support whatevet that might be ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Now imagine we set up a wave by moving some device D along a dispersive medium at speed u, from right to left. Lets assume that the medium is dispersive so that the group and phase velocities are different, for different frequencies. As we move the device D alond, we push it to the left with a force F. We thus supply a power Fu to the wave. In addition, the device carries a power source that supplies a power P1 to the wave. The power P1 might be electric or acoustic power. We assume that in the medium to the left of D there is no wave and to the right of D there is a single frquency, sinusoidal wave travelling to the right. As the device to travels to the left it produces this wave. Applying conservation of energy the stored energy between D and some fixed reference point a distance Z to the right of D is Ez=(P/Vg)z. The rate of change of this energy is (P/Vg) (dz/dt)= Pu/Vg. This rate of change of energy must be equal to the power supplied through D, which is Fu+P1, less the power flowing to the right past the reference point. That is Pu/Vg = P1+ Fu - P. Now applying conservation of moment, the momentum between D and a fixed refernce point a distance z away is p*z where p=2E/Vg.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now imagine we set up a wave by moving some device D along a dispersive medium at speed u, from right to left. Lets assume that the medium is dispersive so that the group and phase velocities are different, for different frequencies. As we move the device D alond, we push it to the left with a force F. We thus supply a power Fu to the wave. In addition, the device carries a power source that supplies a power P1 to the wave. The power P1 might be electric or acoustic power. We assume that in the medium to the left of D there is no wave and to the right of D there is a single frquency, sinusoidal wave travelling to the right. As the device to travels to the left it produces this wave. Applying conservation of energy the stored energy between D and some fixed reference point a distance Z to the right of D is Ez=(P/Vg)z. The rate of change of this energy is (P/Vg) (dz/dt)= Pu/Vg. This rate of change of energy must be equal to the power supplied through D, which is Fu+P1, less the power flowing to the right past the reference point. That is Pu/Vg = P1+ Fu - P. Now applying conservation of moment, the momentum between D and a fixed refernce point a distance z away is p*z where p=2E/Vg. <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>This is completely irrelevant. You seem to be copying passages out of a book -- a book that you don't understand.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>"Never scratch the balls of an angry tiger with a wire brush" - J. Pedro, c1977</p><p> </p><p>My judo instructor was found of saying the above at odd times during class. Nobody ever understood what he meant by it. I have the same feeling now, having read this thread. </p><p>Just thought that somehow sharing this nugget was appropriate. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is completely irrelevant. You seem to be copying passages out of a book -- a book that you don't understand. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You are right i did copy it out of a book b/c you said above that it made no sense at all to have a stored amount of momentum in a reference point. Clearly something is happening when an observation is made maybe it is not momentum, but the point that should be ascertained is that there is a force involved atleast in some situations when you make an observation. Quantum processes change from U to R when observations or detections come about. Mach's claim that changing your reference frame is equal to a force. Although in my above argument this is not the exact case. Yet it is relevant since you asked "what ever do you mean according to wave theory their is a stored amount of momentum according to your reference point?" Are you now saying you did not ask the question? So if your saying it is than irrelevant because physics would not be concerned if there is a force that comes about when things are perceived? What is irrelevant about the answer to your question DR. Rocket? "Doctor" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are right i did copy it out of a book b/c you said above that it made no sense at all to have a stored amount of momentum in a reference point. Clearly something is happening when an observation is made maybe it is not momentum, but the point that should be ascertained is that there is a force involved atleast in some situations when you make an observation. Quantum processes change from U to R when observations or detections come about. Mach's claim that changing your reference frame is equal to a force. Although in my above argument this is not the exact case. Yet it is relevant since you asked "what ever do you mean according to wave theory their is a stored amount of momentum according to your reference point?" Are you now saying you did not ask the question? So if your saying it is than irrelevant because physics would not be concerned if there is a force that comes about when things are perceived? What is irrelevant about the answer to your question DR. Rocket? "Doctor" <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV></p><p>You not only misquoted me, you misquoted yourself. Your words, which I questioned were:"According to wave theory their is a stored amount of moment in a reference frame according to its distance."</p><p>And it does make no sense to talk about momentum stored in a reference frame. Nothing is stored in a reference frame. The momentum that is obseved is, like velocity, dependent on the reference frame of the observer, but certainly no momentum is stored IN a reference frame.</p><p>There is no such concept as the distance OF a reference frame. Distance from what?</p><p>And finally, the book quote that you posted has nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand, and appears to have been a bit garbled in your translation.</p><p>The final (complete) sentence in your most recent post also seems to have been garbled. What on earth are you talking about ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>mee_n_mac said: </p><p>"So what happens when I turn on a flashlight ? I'd have said the photons emitted travel forth, spewing from the bulb. From the OP it would seem they can't move on their own accord but must be carried by "dark energy" which is moving at the speed of light. How does the DE (which is now also the same thing as dark matter ?!?) "know" to go in the direction that I'm pointing the flashlight towards (apparently carrying the photons along for the ride) and not in, I don't know say, the opposite direction ? "</p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><font size="2">mac_n_me: The bulb does emit light (spherically) 360-deg. by 360-deg. The fl</font><font size="2">lashlight has a reflector cone surrounding the bulb, t</font><font size="2">hat focuses/directs the light into the lens and out the front of the flashlight. Because light-photons have no inherent means </font><font size="2">of propulsion they (and other electro-magnetic radiation) are carried throughout the universe as waves, by dark-energy-radiation (moving at the "speed-of-light"). </font><font size="2"> Our universe of protons and electrons w</font><font size="2">as created when two massless sources combined; one posses</font><font size="2">sing an ultra-weak positive charge, and the other an ultra</font><font size="2">-weak negative charge. Our universe exists in a sea of (massl</font><font size="2">ess) dark-matter, much as a gas-bubble can exist in a loaf of b</font><font size="2">read. (Because we exist in a mass-centered univers</font><font size="2">e, it's difficult to imagine massless substances.) Dark-ma</font><font size="2">tter exists in an absolute-zero temperature environment, and the heat and energy of our universe is continually carving out additional areas; creating our expanding universe. This also releases the dark-energy-radiation that pervades our universe, charging atoms. These (constantly) charged and vibrating atoms create the uncertainty principle; that allows for the v</font><font size="2">arying nature of our universe (ie. the present and future) c</font><font size="2">alled time. Of course, dark-energy radiation (like the light from the bulb</font><font size="2">) is dispursed 360-deg. by 360-deg. t</font><font size="2">hroughout the universe because of the spherical shape formed in</font><font size="2"> the "dark-matter" by the creation.</font></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The bulb does emit light (spherically) 360-deg. by 360-deg. The fllashlight has a reflector cone surrounding the bulb, that focuses/directs the light into the lens and out the front of the flashlight. Because light-photons have no inherent means of propulsion they (and other electro-magnetic radiation) are carried throughout the universe as waves, by dark-energy-radiation (moving at the "speed-of-light"). Our universe of protons and electrons was created when two massless sources combined; one possessing an ultra-weak positive charge, and the other an ultra-weak negative charge. Our universe exists in a sea of (massless) dark-matter, much as a gas-bubble can exist in a loaf of bread. (Because we exist in a mass-centered universe, it's difficult to imagine massless substances.) Dark-matter exists in an absolute-zero temperature environment, and the heat and energy of our universe is continually carving out additional areas; creating our expanding universe. This also releases the dark-energy-radiation that pervades our universe, charging atoms. These (constantly) charged and vibrating atoms create the uncertainty principle; that allows for the varying nature of our universe (ie. the present and future) called time. Of course, dark-energy radiation (like the light from the bulb) is dispursed 360-deg. by 360-deg. throughout the universe because of the spherical shape formed in the "dark-matter" by the creation. <br />Posted by <strong>mickeyl</strong></DIV></p><p>First my apologies for not noticing you had responded earlier than now. Usually when I ask a question I monitor the thread to see if I get an answer. I missed yours. That said I have a couple of issues to raise to see if you concept wll ever make sense to me (right now it swure doesn't).</p><p>Let me continue with my flashlight example and see if you can explain the observe behavior of the light produced. Pretend we zoom in on the filament making the photons (it's an old style, non-LED flashlight). I might see an atom, one of whose electrons goes to a reduced energy state, with the result a photon is emitted. You have a different explanation of how this photon is created but hold that for a moment. Also imagine another atom doing the same thing at the same time but just a few atoms away in the filament. It's photon goes off in a completely direction than the 1'st photon we were discussing. How is this possible. What I "understand" from your description is a "sea" of dark energy radiation pre-existing in the background and that that "sea" has a direction, a flow like a current, which carries the photon along with it. How is it that this "sea" flows in one direction for the 1'st photon but in a completely direct direction for the 2'nd photon ?</p><p>Continuing on, now one of the photons hits the reflector and changes direction. Are you saying that the flow of dark energy radiation changes direction when it encounters other "normal" matter ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<font size="2">MeeJ_n_Mac, a simple explanation would be to imagine the bulb suspended in the center of a basketball. Suppose the interior of the basketball (sphere) is emitting straight-line radiation in all-directions. An analogy of our universe's immersion in "dark-matter", with dark-energy radiation activating/vibrating atoms from all directions (360-deg x 360-deg). The original "big-bang" background radiation discovered by Bell Labs in 50's, is (or is also) the continuing dark-energy radiation being dispersed into our universe from "dark-matter" surrounding our continually expanding universe. The photons cannot change their direction of movement, until they are again "deposited" on the electron of an atom. Photons can travel for 13 billion light years in a "straight" line, (on dark-energy-radiation) if no atom electron is encountered. Of course, photons are invisible (not detected) until they hit an atom's electron.</font>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MeeJ_n_Mac, a simple explanation would be to imagine the bulb suspended in the center of a basketball. Suppose the interior of the basketball (sphere) is emitting straight-line radiation in all-directions. An analogy of our universe's immersion in "dark-matter", with dark-energy radiation activating/vibrating atoms from all directions (360-deg x 360-deg). The original "big-bang" background radiation discovered by Bell Labs in 50's, is (or is also) the continuing dark-energy radiation being dispersed into our universe from "dark-matter" surrounding our continually expanding universe. The photons cannot change their direction of movement, until they are again "deposited" on the electron of an atom. Photons can travel for 13 billion light years in a "straight" line, (on dark-energy-radiation) if no atom electron is encountered. Of course, photons are invisible (not detected) until they hit an atom's electron. <br />Posted by <strong>mickeyl</strong></DIV><br /><br />OK let me see if I've got this correct. The "dark matter radiation" is coming (from somewhere) and radiating spherically from the location of photon #1 in my example. Just a few atoms down the filament, it's doing the same thing at photon #2's position. Neither "dark matter radiation" stream interferes or interacts with the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
I'm usually pretty good at interpreting gibberish, but this stuff is just indecipherable.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
Yeah, Mickeyl is getting quite the reputation. Perhaps he should read a couple solid introductory physics books. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--____________________________________________--</p><p><font size="1"> Don't be too hard on me...I'm only in PHY 1010 
</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#339966"> The following goes without saying:</font> </p> </div>
</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#339966"> The following goes without saying:</font> </p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm usually pretty good at interpreting gibberish, but this stuff is just indecipherable. <br />Posted by <strong>derekmcd</strong></DIV><br /><br />But you have to admit it's far better than the "energycentrums" that another poster put forth.</p><p>ATM it seems to me that the OP is creating an untestable carrier for EM radiation that will in the end be a more complex way of describing what we already "see". But I may have to drag it out 1 piece at a time in order to find that it goes that far and isn't just gibberish from top to bottom. Presently this duscussion isn't sucking up too much time so the effort seems worth the trouble of trying to be impartial.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you have to admit it's far better than the "energycentrums" that another poster put forth.ATM it seems to me that the OP is creating an untestable carrier for EM radiation that will in the end be a more complex way of describing what we already "see". But I may have to drag it out 1 piece at a time in order to find that it goes that far and isn't just gibberish from top to bottom. Presently this duscussion isn't sucking up too much time so the effort seems worth the trouble of trying to be impartial. <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Aether was thrown into the circular file over 100 years ago. This sounds like a rehash. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you have to admit it's far better than the "energycentrums" that another poster put forth.ATM it seems to me that the OP is creating an untestable carrier for EM radiation that will in the end be a more complex way of describing what we already "see". But I may have to drag it out 1 piece at a time in order to find that it goes that far and isn't just gibberish from top to bottom. Presently this duscussion isn't sucking up too much time so the effort seems worth the trouble of trying to be impartial. <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>You may find the need to take an occasional break and review a more rational thread, just to remind yourself that there are some reasonable people left in the world. It helps.</p><p>One need not be impartial past the point at which a fallacy becomes evident. To paraphrase Thomas Paine "Impartiality in the face of idiocy is not a virtue. Decisivness in the cause of science is not a vice."<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font size="2">I made a web-site, for the condensed, complete discussion of this topic check out: www.dark-energyuniverse.com, thanks all.</font>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram