Do you really think that knowing nothing about physics and maths is a good way to go about telling people what physics and maths involves?
It seems a popular pastime.
Do you really think that knowing nothing about physics and maths is a good way to go about telling people what physics and maths involves?
Science prefers the simple answers, AlexG. Comlicated fabrications don't interest me, you see. The Universe started expanding fast, then it slowed down, then it sped up again - please!Yes, it's far too complicated for you to understand, so just dismiss it.
If you don't care for any other explanation, then obviously any other explanation must be wrong.
This is why I think your thread belongs in the cesspool.
I notice, Phlogistician, that you employ a good deal of sarcasm in your language. Can we at least keep the discussion scientific?If you were a scientist you'd understand the necessity of Maths. You don't, because you aren't.
Do you? Do you really
Because noob, I think it was 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'
Note the final word.
No it didn't.
Oh dear.
Saw it with your third eye, did you?
Not getting it...It seems a popular pastime.
Welcome, Lady Historica, to my thread. I trust you're another Big Bang fan? Do you agree that science prefers the simpler answers?It seems a good way to learn...
ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
I notice, Phlogistician, that you employ a good deal of sarcasm in your language. Can we at least keep the discussion scientific?
I trhink Newton's work was called 'In Principia,' though I could be wrong.
No, I don't have three eyes, but I am able to spot a fabrication at a thousand paces. Let's see you do that?
I do know Differential equations, or is that 'simultaneous equations'? You obviously know more Math than me.
The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang.
I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.
From a Warm, Smooth, Soupy cloud of protons that was the Early Universe, the Cosmos evolved - starting at the center of the cloud, where Pressures and Temperatures were highest. We know, by looking at Sol, what a huge cloud of Hydrogen can become. But this cloud was immense.
Gravity made the universe, and Gravity runs it. We're in freefall - that's why we're speeding up. Gravity is all there ever was.
There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.
Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'
I always knew you wouldn't like this at Sciforus.com, and nothing I have said contradicts what we see when we look up at the night sky.
My conclusions are all based on Scientific evidence.
Actually, I've said it all - if you read my answers. You already know I believe we're falling into a Black Hole at the center of the Universe.
It's also my belief that everything with mass must have a center of mass. I learned that in Physics class, way back.
It's way too complicated. Science likes the simpler answers.
I already said i agree some math is helpful in Science, but you should be aware that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made without it. The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe. Newton taught us Gravity was Universal.
I think he was smarter than you.
Eating the Universe out, from the center, the Cosmos began to fall into the Center, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure, the evolutionary process started. There was also a good deal of Clumping Up, as we fell.
We are still falling. At present our local Group of Galaxies is falling towards Hydra Centauri, but in such a way that we can never reach it, because Hydra Centauri itself is being dragged off towards The Great Attractor.
The only place you can find these ever lengthening speeding up streams is in a Vortex, and that's what the Universe is.
Shaped much like the Milky Way Galaxy, or the Whirlpool Galaxy, complete w. a Black Hole at the center.
I think it was Einstein who said that a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler.Science prefers the simple answers, AlexG.
Intellectual curiosity and open mindedness doesn't seem to interest you either.Comlicated fabrications don't interest me, you see.
Can you provide a working detailed model which explains the observed data without predicting the behaviour you just rejected? If not can you provide experimental data which falsifies the mainstream model? If not then can you explain why you reject something when your position is completely unsupported by evidence and the opposing position makes testable predictions which have been validated.The Universe started expanding fast, then it slowed down, then it sped up again - please!
never mind right and wrong. Science always prefers the simple answers. Either you know this, or you don't.Science prefers correct answers.
You don't even come close.
Yes, let's try to keep it scientific. Thanks, Phlogistician. Yes, Newton's book is commonly known as In Principia just like I said.We could try, but you'd have to try hardest.
You are wrong, I gave you the name already. Are you such a dolt you cannot work a search engine and verify the title? Clearly you are!
Another unsupported assertion by you. Claim after claim, ... no evidence of understanding. You are becoming a waste of time.
There was no big bang. It was made up by a Belgian Priest, The Rev. Lemaitre, on news that the Observable Universe was expanding. Quite a leap, it seems to me. I understand Erwin Hubble was reluctant to accept this explanation.I am very unhappy with it. I wanted way bigger bang for my buck....
There is a difference between Simultaneous Equations. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this, just as I'm surprised you need me to tell you that Gravity runs the Universe.astrocat:
Do you think there's a difference between differential equations and simultaneous equations?
Maybe you ought to try wikipedia as a starting point. You know how to search, right? You can do it from google easily. If you're interested, that is.
How do you account for Hubble's observations?
Evolved in what way - if it didn't expand at any point?
Why didn't everything just collapse into the centre of the cloud?
Where's the centre of the universe?
What are we freefalling towards?
All ordinary explosions start by speeding up. Obviously, they must, or they'd never get going in the first place.
How did gravity create your hydrogen cloud?
What about the Hubble law? That's derived from observations of the night sky.
Great! I look forward to your evidence-based answers to my questions.
Where's the centre of the universe exactly? (Yeah, I know, I asked that above, but I need to know.)
Did they cover infinite objects?
Do you think quantum electrodynamics is simple? Or do you not believe in that either?
I think you'll find, if you ever read it, that Newton's Principia contains a fair bit of maths. Newton invented calculus, you know. To solve physics problems. He didn't just guess about stuff like you do.
Why did the Cosmos cool down as it sped up as it fell towards the centre?
And how could it expand while it was falling towards the centre?
Where can I find Hydra Centauri in the sky? What is Hydra Centauri? Is it a constellation, a star, a galaxy, or what?
In what way is the universe shaped like the Milky Way Galaxy? Is it a flat disc with a bulge in the middle? If so, why is it flat? Does it have spiral arms? Made of what? Does the universe rotate? What makes it rotate? Are there many black holes or just one big one at the centre?
never mind right and wrong. Science always prefers the simple answers. Either you know this, or you don't.
That's not even a complete sentence, you seem not to even understand James's question about differential and simultaneous equations.There is a difference between Simultaneous Equations.
I asked you to provide some quantitative details and you ignored me. If you don't have an answer at least admit it.I'm surprised you need me to tell you this, just as I'm surprised you need me to tell you that Gravity runs the Universe.
astrocat said:Yes, Newton's book is commonly known as In Principia just like I said.
The name of Newton's publication, in case you don't know, was In Priginal I believe.
And where do you get off insulting me - I think I'm smarter than you, so how's that?
How does Gravity create a Hydrogen cloud? How do you think the sun started? Look at Jupiter - a planet on the edge of going critical. What do you think Jupiter is made of?
It's not Hubble's Law, it's the Hubble Constant (of expansion). I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.
And he Cosmos is finite, that's why it has a ceter. And anything finite has a center - or do you disagree with that?
And it's not Newton's principia. It's Newton's In Principia. I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.
Yes, the universe is 'Pancake-like' confined largely to the Horizontal plane, with a bulge towards the center.
The Cosmos is Expanding Inwardly. Now I realise you never learned about Inward Expansion, but it is a genuine physical phenomenon. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the center of a room, and it will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly to take its place.
What I meant to say, Alex G., is that Science prefers the simple answer because the simple answer is generally the correct one.This boys cheese has slipped off his cracker.
This belongs in the Cesspool.