Write4U:
David Bohm disagreed with you.
Not about photons "riding emerging fields", he didn't.
To be clear, I do not agree that I was in error.
Of course not. Whenever somebody posts substantive criticism of something you've written, you just claim that their correction agrees with what you wrote in the first place, even though the point of the correction was to make you aware of an error you made.
I never claimed the universe is expanding into nothing.
Don't tell lies, Write4U.
Post #253 (you): "Note , that outside the expanding universe is nothing. not even what we call vacuum."
Nothing is the absence of time and dimensions.
You use the word "nothing" as if it is something. Nothing is, literally,
not a thing.
It follows that it is not possible for anything to "expand into" nothing, because "nothing" is not a thing. For something to be expanded into, there has to be a something in the first place.
Space does not expand into anything...
Better.
... it expands because there is nothing that prevents it from expanding
That's not an explanation of why the universe is expanding. It is merely a statement that the universe
could expand. To say something more useful, you need to explain why it
does expand.
i.e. totally permittive (abstract) condition.
Word salad.
To tell people they are wrong is not doing science.
Correct.
The point is that you are not engaging and citing science at all, other than demeaning my efforts.
I am certainly engaging. However, I notice that whenever I ask
you a specific question about your claims, you either ignore them or you just cut-and-paste something random that mentions (in any context, relevant or not) whatever word seems most important to you at the moment.
I have given you information about science whenever you have asked me scientific questions. In general, I do not take the time for include formal citations when I am talking about well-accepted scientific principles and ideas. It should not be hard to find sources that will verify what I have said. If you think something I have told you is wrong, we can discuss that, with citations if necessary.
Mostly, though, you don't seem very interested in asking me questions or in learning stuff from me.
p.s. CC has produced more usable information in 10 posts than you have in 100.
I'm not going to downplay the relevance or usefulness of CC's contributions. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, for what it's worth.
---
By the way, it looks like you missed my helpful post #265, above, too.
There, I pointed out that toroidal planets have nothing to do with toroidal universes.
Here I will add that toroidal magnetic fields have nothing to do with toroidal universes, either. Nor do toroidal circulations of magma in the Earth's mantle. Nor do "toroidal dipoles".
DaveC is correct. Mention the word "toroidal" and it sends you off on a mission to gather random cut-and-pastes from all over the internet. Any mention of the word is enough for you to cut and paste a random chunk and post it here, regardless of relevance to the discussion here. 95% of the time, those random cut-and-pastes are irrelevant as answers to the specific question (s) I asked you and/or they tell me something obvious that I already knew but did not ask you about - something that was never raised as a point of disagreement.
I think, actually, that the lack of any sort of relevance filter is probably why you're never able to post coherently on any scientific topic. Instead of learning something about an area of science and then discussing that, you're really more of a stamp collector or autograph hunter. The
content or
context of any article or web page doesn't seem to matter to you at all. As long as your google search throws up the site as using whatever buzzword triggered your search, you assume that the content must be relevant to whatever it was that you vaguely wanted to discuss.
Instead of running around the interwebs collecting examples of word usage, why don't you try to dig into the
content once in a while, and try to learn some of the science? You could do that by identifying things in your readings that you don't understand, then following up on the those things. You could even try asking some questions, when you find yourself in the company of people who know something about the topics that are confusing you.
Of course, actually learning stuff requires focus and concentration, as well as patience (because good understanding doesn't always come quickly). Stamp collecting is easier, but at the end of the day all you have is your stamp collection; you don't have any actual
use for it.
