Inflation is pseudoscience.

And yet you didn't know about the evidence the mainstream community has for inflation, despite it being all over ArXiv. You didn't know the FRW metric works for hyperspheres, flat planes and open, AdS, spaces. You don't know any closed, boundary-less manifolds in 4 dimensions other than a hypersphere. You didn't know the mainstream model for perturbations from homogeneity and isotropy.

All of those things can be found online. Easily. Yet despite your subject of choice being inflation and the BB, you didn't know about them? Why?
Simply saying "I refuse to reply to this" after I offer to talk about original work with you doesn't mean I haven't made the offer. It means you are not willing to discuss it, yet you claim it's my fault there's no dialogue in that regard? Hardly babbling, just pointing out your inconsistent attempts at arguments.
I mentioned gravitational redshift, antimatter and the 3rd family in the SM as examples of things predicted before they were seen. You keep saying it's a waste of physicists time to predict things they haven't seen, yet history tells us otherwise.

Do you not understand that?
You do realise there's hydrogen gas in space, right? It's not a perfect vacuum and so over 13 billion years there's going to be interactions with the hydrogen out there. Infact, the photons form a dynamic equilibrium with electrons and positrons because they can convert between one another.
I'm at a loss to see the relevance and as James points out, it's a pretty questionable thing you just said.
So I list examples of you showing denial and you lying that I never addressed the "How did the BB expand from such a dense state" question and you're just going to avoid saying "You're right, I was wrong" by pretending it's not there for everyone to read. Similarly with the Wikipedia links and the probabilities. If you're right, you should be able to, rationally, discuss it. Instead you have to just say "Wiki agrees with me", despite my demonstration otherwise.

Whenever you're backed into enough of a corner you just pick up something else to concentrate your whining on and label everything else as 'blathering', hoping people won't see how much of a dodge that is. Then you complain I don't answer your questions and claims! :rolleyes:

Your posts are mostly insults and denial. I provide backup to what I say. You cannot even find a comparable level of evidence for your claims, despite you claiming it's easy to find online. How can we discuss advanced or new topics when you don't even know about the simple ones? :confused:


Same old, same old. I can't be bothered to explain it to you yet again.
 
Same old, same old. I can't be bothered to explain it to you yet again.

How typical. We don't call you "Cop-out Kaneda" behind your back for nothing.:rolleyes: Thanks for vindicating us once again.

Oh - and where's more of your 'theory' of electrical current and electrons being destroyed? I still would enjoy another good laugh at your expense.
 
How typical. We don't call you "Cop-out Kaneda" behind your back for nothing.:rolleyes: Thanks for vindicating us once again.

Oh - and where's more of your 'theory' of electrical current and electrons being destroyed? I still would enjoy another good laugh at your expense.


Poor old Looney Toons. He lost some arguments against me several months back and grew bitter and twisted over it so has been reduced to making spiteful comments and LYING. Show me where I have said that electrons can be destroyed.

Have you thought of seeing a psychiatrist?

Perhaps Crayon-Only would be more apt?
 
Poor old Looney Toons. He lost some arguments against me several months back and grew bitter and twisted over it so has been reduced to making spiteful comments and LYING. Show me where I have said that electrons can be destroyed.

Have you thought of seeing a psychiatrist?

Perhaps Crayon-Only would be more apt?

Poor, poor old uneducated dummy!

Yes, you didn't actually say 'destroyed' but came VERY close:

“ Originally Posted by kaneda
An electric current works by electrons being absorbed and readmitted. One might say that as far as the current is concerned, the original electrons "no longer exist". ”

I laughed at THIS one so hard that I nearly fell out of my chair!!!!!!!!

And what the heck is "readmitted" supposed to mean in this context??? (One could suppose the dummy meant "re-emitted" but since he NEVER makes a spelling error or uses the wrong word, that can't be it.)

I've never seen anyone with the most basic education make such a stupid claim about electric current. That has got to go down as a classic ignoramus in action!! Heh!


Anyone with even a high school education (which you obviously DON'T have) knows full-well that electrons are NOT "absorbed" nor " re-emitted" (althought you botched THAT one too and said "readmitted.")

That's just plain stupid! (Typical of you.) They are NOT like photons, but rather experience what is called "electron drift" and are pushed along the conductor path by the applied EMF (voltage).

I still say that was highly amusing! Even if you have no use to anyone when it comes to science, at least you make a half-decent idiot-comic! (Only in your case you don't have to PLAY dumb!):D:D
 
Back
Top