A Universal Equation: On Non-Zero Energy Totals

Reiku said:
''Are you certain that's not just a measured estimate of the minimal size the universe must be? As far as I've heard, noone to date has been able to place an upper bound on the size of the universe. None of the tested theories we have to date say anything about such a limit.''

On the dot mate. Yes, that is exactly what it is, and since we know the universe is around 15,000 million years old, it is, i would say, a mainstream.
Click to expand...

Source? All the age of the universe tells us is how far out the furthest visible stars should be, depending on which cosmological model you choose. Even though the Big Bang model says that all points in the universe were once spaced infinitesimally close together, that doesn't mean that today all points in the universe can only be ~15 billion light years apart. You'll learn this when you study the maths of General Relativity.

Reiku said:
I know this is wrong. It was a pure mad speculation on my part, for instance, and a very quick one at that, is that spacetime drags matter. I was concluding the error of my understandment of your previous statement.
Click to expand...

Don't you think this kind of hurried speculation is what gets so many of your posts tossed in the Pseudoscience forum? Don't get mad at the moderators, you're responsible for making sure your ideas and concepts are sound and thoroughly considered before you post them in the Physics section.

Reiku said:
AAAhhhh... i thought you meant general physics i have learned in my college studies. Well, i don't have any of the kind you require yet, i am developing them though.
Click to expand...

Good, and I encourage you to keep at it. But you can't jump the gun and try to start a serious discussion about something in the Physics section until you have developed this knowledge. You can ask all the questions you want and seek advice about topics you're learning, but it's pointless to toss ideas out there if you're not even personally sure that they're applicable. I think that as you try and understand the maths and concepts of modern physics in full detail, you'll find yourself constantly pushing the ball further back until you're studying springs all over again (at a more advanced level). A standard education in physics starts with the basics of classical mechanics, then gives a sniff of some modern physics, then goes back to classical physics, then again to modern physics, and then back to classical mechanics yet again. There's a lot of stuff to cover that's glossed over in the early stages, but that doesn't mean it's not crucial for your overall understanding. No pain, no gain.
 
Reiku said:
Who put this in psuedoscience?
Click to expand...
You did.
Reiku said:
By the way, just to let the unbeknown, he was the first guy who had an attitude with me. I am generally a nice person.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. The vast majority of people who know anything about physics and who post on PhysOrg have a similar attitude to him. And even on forums I don't post on, such as BAUT. People tell Reiku/NeoNo.1/Occam's Ghost that he posts pseudoscience, his maths is nonsense, his physics terrible and his claims unsubstantiated and then demonstrate as much. And yet he persists, sometimes even posting the same debunked/disected nonsense in a new thread.

He has been caught plagerising, passing off the work of other cranks as his own. He lies and bends the truth about his education, his credentials and his current activities.

He makes claims he never backs up. He attributes quotes to people like Einstein then can never actually demonstrate he said such things.

He accuses others of being insulting but is always the first to reduce the discussion to "Hey AlphaNumeric, **** you, you're a **** you ****, go **** yourself!". When this has occured, usually as a result of me asking him to put his physics where his mouth is, he will claim he's leaving and never coming back. 4~7 days later he'll return and post a few lengthy pseudoscience essays to show what he's been using his time for.

In the 8~12 months he and I have crossed paths I have never seen him do a single actual maths or physics problem, no matter how simple, despite him claiming he's competant at vector calculus and relativity and plans to do a theoretical physics PhD. Not once has he asked about a proper area of theoretical physics, as say QuarkHead does. He shows absolutely zero sign of doing any of the work/education he claims to be.

My attitude to him is as negative as it is because I know he cannot be reasoned with. Helpful advice, even offers to provide explainations and walk throughs of any actual problems he does during his supposed physics education, is ignored. Honest and lengthy explainations of physical concepts or mathematical methods are thrown back at the provider, for dearing to say he's wrong about something.

A search on PhysOrg for the threads started by NeoNo.1 will demonstrate all of what I've just said. The best way to shut him up is to demolish his nonsense. A complete shreding of his claims, with demonstrations of his ignorance and explainations of falsehoods.

The only way, if he isn't completely lying about his education and plans, he'll ever manage to not horribly fail in said plans is if he learns to accept he's wrong sometimes (most times...) and if I and others have to embarass the crap out of him 10, 20 or 50 times to do that, so be it.

Plus it's gotten to the point where I enjoy taking him down a peg or twelve. And yet he continues to give me ammunition against him....
 
I couldn't ignore this.

You started it Alphanumeric. You targeted me on physorg, when had any chance possible, calling me a crank and a phoney.

You don't know the meaning of helpful advice, because usually its in a tone of condescending attitude.

So when you arrived here, i asked you implicitly to not communicate with me, and yet you claimed you came here, not to talk to me, but because you like the place.

As for my future, i e-mailed (my teacher), and asked her whether my idea's on physics are psuedoscience. Knowing a lot of things i come up with, she replies:

''It's not that your thoughts are psuedoscience, its just that they seem to work in parts, where some of the idea's are incomplete, difficult to concieve, or perfectly wrong... but with that said, you shouldn't let people call you a psuedoscientist. You are working on subjects in class that are perfectly scientific.''
 
CptBork said:
Source? All the age of the universe tells us is how far out the furthest visible stars should be, depending on which cosmological model you choose. Even though the Big Bang model says that all points in the universe were once spaced infinitesimally close together, that doesn't mean that today all points in the universe can only be ~15 billion light years apart. You'll learn this when you study the maths of General Relativity.



Don't you think this kind of hurried speculation is what gets so many of your posts tossed in the Pseudoscience forum? Don't get mad at the moderators, you're responsible for making sure your ideas and concepts are sound and thoroughly considered before you post them in the Physics section.



Good, and I encourage you to keep at it. But you can't jump the gun and try to start a serious discussion about something in the Physics section until you have developed this knowledge. You can ask all the questions you want and seek advice about topics you're learning, but it's pointless to toss ideas out there if you're not even personally sure that they're applicable. I think that as you try and understand the maths and concepts of modern physics in full detail, you'll find yourself constantly pushing the ball further back until you're studying springs all over again (at a more advanced level). A standard education in physics starts with the basics of classical mechanics, then gives a sniff of some modern physics, then goes back to classical physics, then again to modern physics, and then back to classical mechanics yet again. There's a lot of stuff to cover that's glossed over in the early stages, but that doesn't mean it's not crucial for your overall understanding. No pain, no gain.
Click to expand...


Well, i think, due to the expansion time we allow for spacetime, an estimated age from the point of infinite density, and indirect measurements of how the matter has become less and less dense, i thought, would have given us an estimation of the radius of the universe. I can try and find a source if you like.

It may have been hurried yes. The truth is that i know the true operation of spacetime dragging matter, was why i asked what you meant. I do have problems, personal problems sometimes which make it difficult for me to understand some things.

And the last paragraph... how can i argue? You are right.
 
Cpt

''You can ask all the questions you want and seek advice about topics you're learning''

So, i shall ask again.

Is it possible the vacuum addition of energy [which would be a non-zero-total], released the superfluous energy we are observing? Instead of saying when we add the energy, this is what is left over... ...?
 
In the 8~12 months he and I have crossed paths I have never seen him do a single actual maths or physics problem, no matter how simple, despite him claiming he's competant at vector calculus and relativity and plans to do a theoretical physics PhD. ................

Ok, Alphanumeric, i'll write some of the work i am doing at college... if you want, but it won't be a long-lived privilage.
 
Reiku said:
You started it Alphanumeric. You targeted me on physorg, when had any chance possible, calling me a crank and a phoney.
Click to expand...
You kept coming back. You even tried to get my attention many times by posting thread titles with my name in it.
 
Yep, well, since you have kept this up (i mean the constant thread hijacks, which is a troll behaviourism), you have finally stabbed me into doing something which hopefully will shut your overconfident gob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top