You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Big Flow Theory
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
What do you mean interpretation?
There is data, there is a theory which fits the data. You haven't shown that your theory fits the data, and I am quite convinced that you will find that it doesn't. I leave it to you to convince me otherwise.
In case you needed clarification as to why this is in the Pseudoscience bin, then...
There is data, there is a theory which fits the data. You haven't shown that your theory fits the data, and I am quite convinced that you will find that it doesn't. I leave it to you to convince me otherwise.
In case you needed clarification as to why this is in the Pseudoscience bin, then...
Reiku---
I have been saying baryogenesis when I meant nucleosynthesis. This is the period in the universe (from 3 minutes to about 20 minutes) when the light elements were formed.
But it doesn't. You are fooling with things that have been established for six decades, and have been measured with increasing accuracy since then. Changing nucleosynthesis just a little bit WILL affect the cosmic microwave background. We know that nucleosynthesis is right BECAUSE of the WMAP experiment.
You have to SHOW that the changes don't effect the measurements... You can't just say that it ``should fit''...
I have been saying baryogenesis when I meant nucleosynthesis. This is the period in the universe (from 3 minutes to about 20 minutes) when the light elements were formed.
My theory should fit any data known, because i am not removing the big bang. All i am doing is giving a new pre-origin to energy.
But it doesn't. You are fooling with things that have been established for six decades, and have been measured with increasing accuracy since then. Changing nucleosynthesis just a little bit WILL affect the cosmic microwave background. We know that nucleosynthesis is right BECAUSE of the WMAP experiment.
You have to SHOW that the changes don't effect the measurements... You can't just say that it ``should fit''...
Last edited:
I can't be fooling with things, when such speculations like ''energy quantum leaping into other universes,'' are taken highly seriously by Hawking and Dr. Wolf. I am proposing that such an idea could infinite in a finite number of universes.
The reason why ''it should fit,'' is because both conditions are excepted. I am assuming, out of pure speculation, that the wormhole would have been about the size of a proton... anything the size of a blood cell would be inconsistant, because it wouldn't allow enough time for light to reach all four corners of the universe.
The reason why ''it should fit,'' is because both conditions are excepted. I am assuming, out of pure speculation, that the wormhole would have been about the size of a proton... anything the size of a blood cell would be inconsistant, because it wouldn't allow enough time for light to reach all four corners of the universe.
is because both conditions are excepted.
Which conditions?
Well, they must, if they are to be bound by the [big bang], which was the initial intentions of both Hawking and Dr. Wolf.
Well, big bang maybe. But there are other things which we can test, specifically nucleosynthesis, which happened BEFORE 32 years, and which is proven by observations.
I'm saying that there is plenty of ``energy'' around immediately after the big bang, and all of the light elements that are EVER going to be formed in the universe are done so within the first 20 minutes. There is NO ROOM for any more energy to magically pop into the picture 30 years later.
There might be Ben... ''there MIGHT be enough energy around ''immediately'' after big bang. But there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence... and math certainly isn't. I think both of us should be logical about this. If there are some thoeries suggesting 18,000 years, others 32 and others instantly, my preseny model shouldn't be affected, because then it all comes down to what interpretation you chose to end with. And this at best is metaphysical.