Center of Universe?

[RealityCheck]

RealityCheck, I don't think you are playing with a full deck of cards. It very often seems to me that you are not even talking about the same thing everyone else is.

You continue to be trying to frame the discussion in terms of SR. While SR is a weak field limit of GR, ie. it is accurate in a locally flat spacetime, the expansion of space is described within the context of GR, rather than SR. It does not occur in the abscence of gravity, instead it occurs inspite of gravity.

You seem unable to make any sort of transition away from the conceptual image that any increase in distance must involve velocity. That is not what the expansion of space suggests. It is more like space is being created, uniformly throughout the universe. And is only observable in those areas between large galactic scale interital systems where gravity no longer dominates the dynamics. It is not a conceptual image, that is easily conveyed in terms of common everyday experience.

The fact is that the expansion of space emerges from GR and recent observations of distant objects. Trying to discredit it by restricting explanations, to the rules and restrictions of SR and/or any predetermined bias, is a distraction.

I have seen no real hi t in your posts that you understand what many others have been trying to explain, and frankly I often find myself scratching my head when trying to figure out what your intent is. (To be honest I am sure the same could be said by other relative to many of my own posts.)

I just don't believe your question was an honest question. It is as if you entered the discussion, already biased on the issue, with little inertest in anyone's explaintion.

If it seems that way it is perhaps because you (and others) keep cross-purposing what I say by putting your OWN spin on what I am actually saying. If you could stop doing that I would appreciate it, and we may not be at cross-purposes every time you make such assumptions about what you THINK is said/pointed to.

Let's try again. I only question the use of origin's use of either SR or GR when 'explaining' the hypothesis of 'space expansion/increase' as if that 'explains' anything at all about the 'interpretation' of the redshift AS a 'change in distance' and/or a 'change in velocity' OTHER THAN proper velocity (which proper velocity does NOT figure in the 'universal recession' velocities hypothesized to be greater than lightspeed for the furthest galaxies according to the interpretation of the redshift overall).

Get it? One can't have it both ways. Either that velocity inferred from redshift is ALL 'proper' through-space GEODESICS or NOT. If not, then one must explain where/what are the 'with-space' geodesics of the part that is NOT proper through-space velocity....which is what origin et al 'explanations' claim there exists (based on SR/GR theory which does NOT actually explain that).

Don't keep personalizing and cross-purposing a simple straightforward point needing to be addressed by anyone claiming that SR/GR or any other 'theory' actually treats and explains that aspect without extrapolating and speculating based on HYPOTHESIS not THEORY.

Look, mate, I know you are trying to be helpful, And I appreciate that; but I am running out of time/energy to spare for going round and round because we DO seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Please go back and re-read all the context/posts from my first post to origin and try to see where the subtle point IS rather than bringing in what you THINK it is (but is not) and then defaulting to the usual responses which are NOT to the actual point I AM putting.

I'll be back to see what gives in a couple days (or tomorrow if I can).

 

[origin]

Let's try again. I only question the use of origin's use of either SR or GR when 'explaining' the hypothesis of 'space expansion/increase' as if that 'explains' anything at all about the 'interpretation' of the redshift AS a 'change in distance' and/or a 'change in velocity' OTHER THAN proper velocity (which proper velocity does NOT figure in the 'universal recession' velocities hypothesized to be greater than lightspeed for the furthest galaxies according to the interpretation of the redshift overall).

The point is that recession velocity due to the expansion of space does not violate SR. Since you have supposedly extensively studied the BB this should not be a real big surprise to you.

Get it? One can't have it both ways. Either that velocity inferred from redshift is ALL 'proper' through-space GEODESICS or NOT. If not, then one must explain where/what are the 'with-space' geodesics of the part that is NOT proper through-space velocity....which is what origin et al 'explanations' claim there exists (based on SR/GR theory which does NOT actually explain that).

Wrong. Again, even though you proclaim you have done all of this studing - you still proclaim your ignorance.

Don't keep personalizing and cross-purposing a simple straightforward point needing to be addressed by anyone claiming that SR/GR or any other 'theory' actually treats and explains that aspect without extrapolating and speculating based on HYPOTHESIS not THEORY.

Sorry, but the clueless do not get to decide if an accepted scientific theory is viable or not.

Look, mate, I know you are trying to be helpful, And I appreciate that; but I am running out of time/energy to spare for going round and round because we DO seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Please go back and re-read all the context/posts from my first post to origin and try to see where the subtle point IS rather than bringing in what you THINK it is (but is not) and then defaulting to the usual responses which are NOT to the actual point I AM putting.

Well quit flapping your jaw and get that paper written on your theory and submitted to peer review. Gee, I am expecting that to happen real soon.

 

[icarus2]

When we did not have verifiable ability about two models, we decided the final model.

I am sorry. I really apologize for my poor English.
In my opinion,


1. Expansion of the universe and expansion of space isn't the same concept.

If space doesn’t expand, is GR wrong? No.
If GR is right, must space expand? No.

We observe not expansion of space but redshift of galaxy,
Expansion of space is one of model for explain redshift. And yet we have never observed the expansion of space.


2. Hubble's observation of all galaxies receding with Earth in the center.

It is assumed that interpretation issues of observation results above applied most in physicists and astronomers introducing expansion of space. When observed from Earth, it is observed that all galaxies recede from Earth and the recession velocity also follow all relations of $$\vec V = H\vec R$$.

To explain this, if position of the Earth is the center of expansion, namely if position of the Earth is the center of universe, this issue can be simply solved but it can be clearly known that Earth isn't the center of the universe from the observation of the universe until now.

It is because Earth isn't the center of the solar system, but is clear to be just a planet and that the solar system isn't the center of the galactic system either.

Therefore, physicists and astronomers had to find a way to explain this and as this couldn't be explained by dynamics, a new concept that "space expands" was introduced. To explain more specifically, it is assumed that the stereotype that Hubble's observation isn't valid in places where isn't the center of expansion had influence.

I show that Hubble's law is valid is a very wide area in 3 dimensional space when the initial speed of galaxies is much larger than the velocity change by deceleration and acceleration (in the same meaning, when velocity change by deceleration and acceleration is smaller compared to initial speed).

caption : Hubble's law doesn't result from the expansion of space, but is a dynamical result from the movement of galaxies in space. Two situations are same.


3. There is high possibility that velocity change by deceleration and acceleration is smaller compared to initial speed (or almost zero).

Considering decelerating expansion and accelerating expansion and movement of relative particles, the actual age of the universe is $$0.993t_{H}$$. It is very close to 1. Namely, our universe has a state of $$ - a_1 t_1 + a_2 t_2 \approx 0$$ .

**Ref : Bradley W. Carroll, Dale A. Ostlie. Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.**


4. The two models(model of expansion of space and non-expansion of space(or Doppler shift)) show similar results in close galaxies(z<2), but show difference in far galaxies.

In condition of z<2, difference of distance <5%. By the way, distance in z=2 is over 11Gly.
** Maybe, this result derived from the old model $$\Lambda=0$$ **

Although we did not have verifiable ability about two models, we decided the final model. Because of the fixed idea that Hubble's observation isn't valid in places where isn't the center of expansion.

From 1,2,3,4 items, Therefore, should be given the opportunity of review to non-expandsion model of space(or the movement of galaxies through space).

--- Icarus2
Space doesn't expand. New proof of Hubble's law and Center of the universe
http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0044

 

[origin]

I looked through your paper. Yikes, you clearly put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it. I feel really badly for you.

Good luck.

 

[RealityCheck]

The point is that recession velocity due to the expansion of space does not violate SR. Since you have supposedly extensively studied the BB this should not be a real big surprise to you.

I never said it did violate SR. Cross-purpose misunderstanding; or an intentional straw man? Either way, no thanks.

It is you et al and SR that does not explain where those ASSUMED 'faster than light recession velocity' geodesics go if they are not proper motion velocities through space. Do you understand that?

You cant' keep being allowed to have it both ways without explaining precisely in what WAY the 'expanding/more space' component of their total velocity-according-to-redshift motion does not violate SR. There are two components to recession velocities: one classicly-inherently proper (through) local space) and one SR-assumed-from-extreme-redshift-interpretations (with) 'expanding' space.

Explain the geodesics for both components. We can already for the proper (through) space geodesics; but where is the 'consistent explanation' for those geodesics due to the 'expanding with space' hypothesis/claim? Get the points yet to be 'explained' by you/SR?

You can't have it both ways when 'explaining' as you did to icarus2.

Wrong. Again, even though you proclaim you have done all of this studing - you still proclaim your ignorance.

Since you still haven't addressed the challenge put about explaining the geodesics for BOTH components of recession velocities inferred from redshift of distant galaxies, it is demonstrably you who tacitly again proclaim your ignorance and inability to argue from facts rather than hypotheses/speculation.

Sorry, but the clueless do not get to decide if an accepted scientific theory is viable or not.

No, but the objective skeptical questioner/observer can ask questions. Then it is the satisfactory or unsatisfactory 'answers' to these questions which will determine the validity or otherwise of the hypothesis/speculation/theory from which your intial answer was extrapolated/offered without substantiation as to the points I raised re mechanism and 'expansion' geodesics for galaxies supposedly 'receding at greater than lightspeed' relative to us.


So your comment there was a disingenuously blatant and resoundingly hollow straw man. No thanks. Please keep such to yourself in future. And actually answer to the point if you are so confident that you can answer cogently and validly what was put to you.

Well quit flapping your jaw and get that paper written on your theory and submitted to peer review. Gee, I am expecting that to happen real soon.

Have you something against putting thoroughness and consistency before 'rush to publish'. This is especially crucial when the COMPLETE TOE is in the offing. Why rush to publish 'partial' papers when the whole thing will do better and avoid unnecessary cross-purpose explanations which could be avoided by publishing complete and consistent TOE all in one go? I am a patient scientist; unlike some. Whatever partial aspects of the TOE I may have discussed in these internet forums and elsewhere were merely 'sounding board' excursions into what other theories do and do not still 'offer' by way of 'completeness'. Unfortunately, no other theory I have come across offers completeness or total consistency across 'ad hoc marriages' between partial theories both conventional and eccentric. The purpose of all my efforts is to remedy that and unify all the valid partial theories via 'bridges' of my own which make all the partial theories make consistent sense without all the contortions necessary within each partial theory due to 'boundary conditions/limitations' which partial theories inevitably hit up against at present.

I will publish as soon as it is right to do so and as soon as life and health allows. Science cannot be hurried for the sake of 'sound bites' and 'ego trips' such as I see on the forums all over much too often, and often from those who should know and understand better what it is like to work at the cutting edge and dealing with both complex and controversial matters like the 'complete' TOE efforts from all quarters, including amateurs and professionals individually and in groups.

Don't worry, origin. Have patience. All good things come in their own good time. Scientific discoveries and paradigm shifts included.

Meanwhile, it would help everyone if you could do what was required or concede that your 'explanation' to icarus2 was speculation repeated from speculative hypotheses that do not explain what I pointed out here (again).

Back in a couple days to see what new evasion/insult/strawman you dream up in order to keep from answering as requested those things which were put to you in fair debate.

 

[brucep]

I never said it did violate SR. Cross-purpose misunderstanding; or an intentional straw man? Either way, no thanks.

It is you et al and SR that does not explain where those ASSUMED 'faster than light recession velocity' geodesics go if they are not proper motion velocities through space. Do you understand that?

You cant' keep being allowed to have it both ways without explaining precisely in what WAY the 'expanding/more space' component of their total velocity-according-to-redshift motion does not violate SR. There are two components to recession velocities: one classicly-inherently proper (through) local space) and one SR-assumed-from-extreme-redshift-interpretations (with) 'expanding' space.

Explain the geodesics for both components. We can already for the proper (through) space geodesics; but where is the 'consistent explanation' for those geodesics due to the 'expanding with space' hypothesis/claim? Get the points yet to be 'explained' by you/SR?

You can't have it both ways when 'explaining' as you did to icarus2.






Since you still haven't addressed the challenge put about explaining the geodesics for BOTH components of recession velocities inferred from redshift of distant galaxies, it is demonstrably you who tacitly again proclaim your ignorance and inability to argue from facts rather than hypotheses/speculation.







No, but the objective skeptical questioner/observer can ask questions. Then it is the satisfactory or unsatisfactory 'answers' to these questions which will determine the validity or otherwise of the hypothesis/speculation/theory from which your intial answer was extrapolated/offered without substantiation as to the points I raised re mechanism and 'expansion' geodesics for galaxies supposedly 'receding at greater than lightspeed' relative to us.


So your comment there was a disingenuously blatant and resoundingly hollow straw man. No thanks. Please keep such to yourself in future. And actually answer to the point if you are so confident that you can answer cogently and validly what was put to you.





Have you something against putting thoroughness and consistency before 'rush to publish'. This is especially crucial when the COMPLETE TOE is in the offing. Why rush to publish 'partial' papers when the whole thing will do better and avoid unnecessary cross-purpose explanations which could be avoided by publishing complete and consistent TOE all in one go? I am a patient scientist; unlike some. Whatever partial aspects of the TOE I may have discussed in these internet forums and elsewhere were merely 'sounding board' excursions into what other theories do and do not still 'offer' by way of 'completeness'. Unfortunately, no other theory I have come across offers completeness or total consistency across 'ad hoc marriages' between partial theories both conventional and eccentric. The purpose of all my efforts is to remedy that and unify all the valid partial theories via 'bridges' of my own which make all the partial theories make consistent sense without all the contortions necessary within each partial theory due to 'boundary conditions/limitations' which partial theories inevitably hit up against at present.

I will publish as soon as it is right to do so and as soon as life and health allows. Science cannot be hurried for the sake of 'sound bites' and 'ego trips' such as I see on the forums all over much too often, and often from those who should know and understand better what it is like to work at the cutting edge and dealing with both complex and controversial matters like the 'complete' TOE efforts from all quarters, including amateurs and professionals individually and in groups.

Don't worry, origin. Have patience. All good things come in their own good time. Scientific discoveries and paradigm shifts included.

Meanwhile, it would help everyone if you could do what was required or concede that your 'explanation' to icarus2 was speculation repeated from speculative hypotheses that do not explain what I pointed out here (again).

Back in a couple days to see what new evasion/insult/strawman you dream up in order to keep from answering as requested those things which were put to you in fair debate.

You said: "It is you et al and SR that does not explain where those ASSUMED 'faster than light recession velocity' geodesics go if they are not proper motion velocities through space. Do you understand that? "

Do you understand that? Could anybody make any sense of that nonsense? It's incoherent bullshit.

The make believe book is just part of your remedial troll. Since the subject matter is way beyond your abilities to comprehend you couldn't even define a 'fair debate'. Just part of your boring troll.

 

[RealityCheck]

You said: "It is you et al and SR that does not explain where those ASSUMED 'faster than light recession velocity' geodesics go if they are not proper motion velocities through space. Do you understand that? "

Do you understand that? Could anybody make any sense of that nonsense? It's incoherent bullshit.

The make believe book is just part of your remedial troll. Since the subject matter is way beyond your abilities to comprehend you couldn't even define a 'fair debate'. Just part of your boring troll.

Do you understand it as written and explained in context more than once?

Or is this yet another trolling 'hit and run', and 'don't bother to read/understand what is being said' ego-trip put-down from you without bothering to even try to understand things as put?

You understand geodesics. You understand how that applies in through-space motion.

Now what is so hard to understand about my asking what are the with-space geodesics for that part of the alleged with-space 'universal recession velocity component' motion which you/origin et al and SR keep talking about but don't explain/describe what exactly ARE those 'faster than light recession component' geodesics?

You can't have it both ways.

Try to read my posts to origin and OnlyMe. That is the only way any comment from you will sound anywhere near cogent. But do understand what is being asked before opening your mouth again in yet another empty and pointless 'drive by' designed to help origin et al evade the point/question yet again.


Thanks.

 

[origin]

I never said it did violate SR. Cross-purpose misunderstanding; or an intentional straw man? Either way, no thanks.

It is you et al and SR that does not explain where those ASSUMED 'faster than light recession velocity' geodesics go if they are not proper motion velocities through space. Do you understand that?

You cant' keep being allowed to have it both ways without explaining precisely in what WAY the 'expanding/more space' component of their total velocity-according-to-redshift motion does not violate SR. There are two components to recession velocities: one classicly-inherently proper (through) local space) and one SR-assumed-from-extreme-redshift-interpretations (with) 'expanding' space.

Explain the geodesics for both components. We can already for the proper (through) space geodesics; but where is the 'consistent explanation' for those geodesics due to the 'expanding with space' hypothesis/claim? Get the points yet to be 'explained' by you/SR?

I don't believe you actually want any sort of answer you appear to just want to troll, but on the off hand that you do want to discuss this I will try.

First the term recession velocity seems to be confusing you. It is a confusing term. Recession velocity is not a real velocity because there is no movement through space it is due to the expansion of space between 2 distant ojects. The red shift in the light is not due to the relative velocity between the 2 objects. The red shift is due to the expanding space stretching the photons as they propagate through space.

You have asked the question, 'Why don't the galaxies move with space'. This doesn't really make any sense. Lets use the earth as an example. A good approximate value for the expansion is 74 km/sec/Mpc. So the universe around us is expanding, at the earth there is no detectable addition of space, at a radius of 1/2 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 37 Km/sec, at a radius of 1 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 74 Km/sec and at a radius of 2 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 148 Km/sec. So all around us space is expanding. We are simply observing the space around us iniformly expanding outward. So of course we are not moving through space due to the expansion. Where would we move and why would we move through space due to this uniform expansion around us?

The concept of geodesics is not something that I have worked with. You keep asking for SR to explain expanding space geodesics, but I think the geodesic for expansion is in the relm of GR not SR. Like I said this is a bit over my head but I think this site will have the information that you are requesting.

Expanding universe and General Relativity

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi origin,

I don't believe you actually want any sort of answer you appear to just want to troll, but on the off hand that you do want to discuss this I will try.

What you do or don't believe is of no concern to anyone, especially me, since I wanted from the first to engage on the science and question both the rhetoric and the facile 'explanations'.

Oh origin, where does one begin?

You've got so many things misconstrued that it's probably just as well you finally decided to actually engage instead of evade and preconclude that the 'other guy must be wrong' because you THINK you have the answers already. Let's see....

First the term recession velocity seems to be confusing you. It is a confusing term. Recession velocity is not a real velocity because there is no movement through space it is due to the expansion of space between 2 distant ojects. The red shift in the light is not due to the relative velocity between the 2 objects. The red shift is due to the expanding space stretching the photons as they propagate through space.

I have NEVER confused the alleged universal 'recession velocity'. That was why I challenged the usual 'confusion' brought by your kind of facile 'explanation'. Because I ALREADY know there is NO FTL TROUGH-SPACE motion.

We hear 'resident experts' here and other sites say things like "expanding space taking the galaxies ALONG WITH that space, so no faster than light velocities are involved".

So I ask them to explain the mechanism which couples those far distant galaxies TO that expanding space so as to produce the "take galaxies along with that expanding space".

Then they come back with a 'revised explanation' saying that there is NOT EXPANDING space but JUST MORE space which is somehow supposed to STRETCH out photon wavelengths along with the stratching of that expanding space.

So they came full circle back to 'expanding' space, and THEN ADD the PHOTON STRETCHING 'explanation' to boot!

So I then naturally and logically ask them to explain:

- just HOW that space is manifest between those galaxies to give the 'universal recession' component effect of 'redshift' IF those galaxies have not MOVED AWAY other than their usual proper motion which they would have if space had remained 'unchanged' or 'flat'; and...

- HOW does the 'space' (expanding or otherwise) affect the photon wavelength if they also maintain elsewhere that "space is just pure geometry-distance and so not involved in any interactions WITH a photon since the photon is just moving along a NULL geodesic at all times through that space?

Then they AGAIN come back with that EXPANDING SPACE 'explanation' (which they only just 'revised' to say "just MORE" space, remember?), and say that the photon is stretched by that expanding space between the far source galaxy and our detector here.

Now THAT is the sort of 'resident expert' CONFUSION and circuitous and 'changing goal posts' so-called 'explanations' that I wish you or any other 'resident expert' to address and clear up once and for all. Unreasonable ask?

And I ask you to be cognizant that the universal recession redshift effect is attributed to the different local states between the far source and the local detector. If you have any doubt about that, please feel free to argue that with waitedavid137 over at physforum, and he will give you all the professional references/interpretations you wish.

Which means that YOUR above repetition of that 'facile explanation' about the 'expanding space' and 'stretching photons' etc etc is just pure hogwash not fit to be considered, let alone offered as an 'explanation' in a science forum.

You have asked the question, 'Why don't the galaxies move with space'. This doesn't really make any sense. Lets use the earth as an example. A good approximate value for the expansion is 74 km/sec/Mpc. So the universe around us is expanding, at the earth there is no detectable addition of space, at a radius of 1/2 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 37 Km/sec, at a radius of 1 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 74 Km/sec and at a radius of 2 Mpc space is being added at a rate of 148 Km/sec. So all around us space is expanding. We are simply observing the space around us iniformly expanding outward. So of course we are not moving through space due to the expansion. Where would we move and why would we move through space due to this uniform expansion around us?

NO. NO. NO. You got that wrong too. I never asked that! That is your misconstruing because either don't pay attention OR read with biased preconclusions of your own.

I asked for the coupling mechanism for THEIR facile 'explanation' about 'galaxies being taken along' WITH so-called 'expanding space' which THEY claim, NOT ME. Get that straight?

No wonder it doesn't make sense, because I DID NOT claim that NOR did I ask that. It is your misunderstanding and the nonsense is in your 'expanding space' and 'stretching photons' and etc etc. so-called 'explanations'....which makes the rest of your above paragraph irrelevant because it does NOT ADDRESS what I actually asked as a direct consequence of those nonsense 'explanations' repeated so glibly and unthinkingly by you and other the 'resident experts' here and elsewhere.

Re-read my previous paragraph and you will see why your and others' such 'explanations' are NOTHING OF THE KIND; which is why I ask these questions to get some real explanation IF they have any that is actually CONSISTENT and not circuitous and confusing to THEMSELVES as well as to the readers of same. Thanks.

The concept of geodesics is not something that I have worked with. You keep asking for SR to explain expanding space geodesics, but I think the geodesic for expansion is in the relm of GR not SR. Like I said this is a bit over my head but I think this site will have the information that you are requesting.

Expanding universe and General Relativity

Obviously it's much too much over your head, else you would not just go round repeating and parroting such 'facile' nd self-confounding 'explanations' which fly in the face of counter-evidence that space does NOT 'stretch' photons, nor do galaxies couple to the local space for them to be taken along with them in any way whatsoever because space i s not 'expanding' nor is there 'just more of it' , nor any other rationalization tried so far to make sense of the confused understanding of what the universal redshift effect actually IS.

The SR/GR distinction is a furphy, because irrespective of what you invoke, there is NO consistent professional 'explanation' no mattr what tack you take; 'expanding space'; 'just more space' or; 'space stretching photons' and 'null geodesics' which go nowhere and yet there is redshift EVEN THOUGH SPACE CANNOT 'stretch' photons to effect any redshift UNLESS the galaxies themselves are moving WITH space...but that is not possible UNLESS you provide the coupling mechanism, which is not there. And if it IS there, then you have to explain what the geodesics are and where the galaxies are moving IF NOT FASTER THAN LIGHT through space.


See, origin? I has very good and cogent reasons for wanting further clarification of such facile and OBVIOUSLY SELF-CONFOUNDED so-called 'explanations' being trotted out as if they were anything of the kind.

I trust you now realize that "There is more in heaven and earth that is dreamt of in your philosophy" in some areas of science/understanding. Which is why you would do well if in future you took me seriously and actually took the trouble to actually understand the SUBTLE NUANCES which my questions/challenges treat when asking those who blithely trot out facile and self-confounded orthodox 'explanations' to THINK AGAIN after you consider my questions for a while WITHOUT kneejerking and insulting becuase of your own UN-EXAMINED 'understandings' being not quite all there, as I have pointed out.

So, take a long break from trolling and insulting and kneeherking and ego-preening and drive-by cheap shots, and just RE-THINK about those things I have questioned/hypothesized about since I joined. You could do a lot worse, because so far you and others have nothing to offer explorations of the status quo which I and others are BOUND by the demands of SCIENCE and LOGIC to TEST and ask for clarification where indicated.

That is all I am here for; no more, no less; hence my moniker: RealityCheck.


PS: To whom it may concern: I am again having soon to withdraw from internet discourse in order to again concentrate my time to finalizing my TOE from scratch. So if I soon disappear for a few weeks and do not get to reply to any particular post, please don't take it amiss. Cheers and good luck and good thinking to you all!

 

[origin]

Well I tried but recieved the ignorant trolling response expected. You are so deluded that you don't even realize how incredibly funny it is that you are going to 'finalize your TOE from scratch'. Why don't you come up with a cancer drug that can detect and destroy cancer cells based on the altered DNA.

In your deluded state you can't see that since you are completely ignorant of the requisite background in both fields you will have exactly the same chance of achieving either case. Zero.

It is rather pathetic, but you have a good few weeks of manic delusion and bring back your master piece.

 

[prometheus]

A good note on which to end this thread.