Just how old are you? We cannot know anything about the time frame, because we were not around to experience and observe it. What we think is based on imagination, guess work and theoretical projections. None of which rise to the level of knowing....
The Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Nightshift
- Start date
Just how old are you? We cannot know anything about the time frame, because we were not around to experience and observe it. What we think is based on imagination, guess work and theoretical projections. None of which rise to the level of knowing....
paddoboy, as a very pertinent, and very important, actual point of fact : The Big Bang Theory was, and still is, a Scientific Theory!
paddoboy, please copy/paste one of your "reputable sources" that expressly states, and supplies the supporting clear evidence, that a "Scientific Theory" is the exact equal to an established "Scientific Fact".
~unknown
Don't worry, Reiku. I'm sure the mods won't cut you much slack after your repeated intrusions since being banned.
Put up or shut up. Prove that df(t)/dx = 0 means what you say it means. Prove that it leads to the moronic premise of this thread.
The following quoted material (Bold by dmoe!) is from : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=33
The discourse, paddoboy's Post #76 of this Thread, quoted below, seems to me to be an excellent example of "Trolling" behavior - especially indicative of what I put in Bold ^^quoted above^^!
-(Bold by dmoe!)
But, what I see as "Trolling behavior" is being exhibited by paddoboy, so...
sciforums.com/announcement said:
The discourse, paddoboy's Post #76 of this Thread, quoted below, seems to me to be an excellent example of "Trolling" behavior - especially indicative of what I put in Bold ^^quoted above^^!
-(Bold by dmoe!)
But, what I see as "Trolling behavior" is being exhibited by paddoboy, so...
Well actually there are two kinds of change involved. In communication, information is preserved but the state of a sender changes as does the state of a receiver. In computation, information is not preserved.Nightshift said:
Why do we perceive these changes in abstract sender/receiver pairs, or "communication of information", and why do we perceive information being transformed such that some is lost or dissipated, in "computation"? In fact these two kinds of change are fundamental, and we wouldn't know how to build computers if we did not perceive them, nor would we have much of a concept of information. So I think there is more, rather than "nothing more".
A clock is really just a simple kind of computing device which outputs a certain kind of information or code repeatedly.
Information, its transmission and transformation, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense without time.
Well... yes. I mean, as far as conscious recording devices are concerned, such as ourselves, time is very necessary.
Strictly speaking within the framework of relativity, (excluding for a moment time is completely subjective) change still isn't and in relativity change is only measured when matter fields enter the scene. As explained before, there is no notion of time without change. Barbour also makes this point.
Why? One must ask... why?
You do realize this is theoretical, no one is saying anyone was around. What i am saying is that time doesn't make sense at this period of the universe.
And how not to think: avoid error, don't embrace it.
That has no application here since pretending to know something, and screwing it up during the explanation, is not the same thing. Here it's simply a matter of being wrong. Here "thinking for yourself" has become a euphemism for "lying to yourself" (assuming the crank actually believes himself). Otherwise it's just a dumb scam, out and out trolling. That's why Reiku was perma-banned.
Not really. Most of his acclaim comes from strict adherence to the laws of electromagnetics and his adherence to the rigid axioms of math by which he married the postulates of Poincarre and Lorentz with the laws previously discovered by Maxwell, Ampere, Gauss and Faraday. All of that was as mainstream as any physicist of that era could hope for.
Here we go again,
Me old mate's gone banana's again,
The scientific theory of the BB/inflationary model, is as well supported as any theory, and it is a "FACT" that the BB theory, does say it was an evolution of space and time.....
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND???
Now stop acting the goose and grow up!
@ Aqueous Id
I would feed a mendicant!
I would however, prefer that you apply your attempt to "feed" on some other Poster!
Please?
I would feed a mendicant!
I would however, prefer that you apply your attempt to "feed" on some other Poster!
Please?
Just as I stated..Thanks AId.....I would have thought anyone though contributing to this thread would know that.
I fully UNDERSTAND the difference between a "Scientific Theory" and an established "Scientific Fact"!
Once again, paddoboy, as a very pertinent, and very important, actual point of fact : The Big Bang Theory was, and still is, a Scientific Theory!
Once again, paddoboy, please copy/paste one of your "reputable sources" that expressly states, and supplies the supporting clear evidence, that a "Scientific Theory" is the exact equal to an established "Scientific Fact".
I apologise...
It now seems obvious English is not your first language.
Yes the BB theory is a well supported scientific theory...got it...we all accept that. And it will always remain so......
Now here's where you are getting rather confused.
It is a fact that the BB theory says that space and time evolved from the BB....or words to that effect
In other words, the BB theory is not a fact, but it is a fact what the BB theory says....eg: the BB theory does not say Unicorns evolved from it....or that planets and stars just popped out of the Singularity from whence the BB arose.....
No reputable links needed as it is a well known fact what the BB theory does say.....Does that clear up your confusion?
If English is your first language, I would like to know how you can claim that I said the above when I really said the following......
and then after you questioned the first post I replied.....
In other words [to teach Granny how to suck eggs] the BB was not a theory about Unicorns, or Goblins...it was in FACT about the evolution of space and time!!!!!!
Now what is your problem?
Why are you being so obtuse and difficult?
Why do you deliberately misinterpret?
Are you just trolling?
Is this any part of a vengeful attack and payback for your past bannings?
For what, exactly?
Actually, English is my "first language". So...either your cognitive abilities in deduction are non-existent, or you are "obviously" attempting to erect another in a long line of "Strawman" arguments.
yes, paddoboy, if it was NOT a "well supported scientific theory", you would NOT repeat it, Ad Nauseam! Whether or not "it will always remain so...", well...excuse the pun - but only time will tell!
Another "Strawman" or Ad Hominem, paddoboy?
And again, another "Strawman" or Ad Hominem, paddoboy?
So...one final "Strawman" or Ad Hominem, paddoboy?
paddoboy, I suffer no "confusion". As I have previously stated, quite clearly, in English :
I fully UNDERSTAND the difference between a "Scientific Theory" and an established "Scientific Fact"!
Once again, paddoboy, as a very pertinent, and very important, actual point of fact : The Big Bang Theory was, and still is, a Scientific Theory!
Once again, paddoboy, please copy/paste one of your "reputable sources" that expressly states, and supplies the supporting clear evidence, that a "Scientific Theory" is the exact equal to an established "Scientific Fact".
Time like space exists.
It cannot be escaped in any circumstances in any model proposed, including Einstein's original static Universe.
It is an entity that is flexible as is space, or non absolute, which can be shown in the equations and FoR's of GR, and logically following from the finite speed of light.
It seems also logical that our three prime theories of cosmology the BB, SR/GR are intertwined in some respects, just as is the real concepts of space and time are intertwined, and depend on one another.
To have three cosmological theories supporting each other and so well supported says a lot about the standard of 20th Century cosmology.
All three may have some tinkering to come, but that will most assuredly come from well respected recognised cosmologists and scientists, not afraid of peer review and the accepted scientific method.
The general solid stance and highly successful nature of the three theories in cosmology today, should mean that all will probably be part and parcel of any future QGT.
It cannot be escaped in any circumstances in any model proposed, including Einstein's original static Universe.
It is an entity that is flexible as is space, or non absolute, which can be shown in the equations and FoR's of GR, and logically following from the finite speed of light.
It seems also logical that our three prime theories of cosmology the BB, SR/GR are intertwined in some respects, just as is the real concepts of space and time are intertwined, and depend on one another.
To have three cosmological theories supporting each other and so well supported says a lot about the standard of 20th Century cosmology.
All three may have some tinkering to come, but that will most assuredly come from well respected recognised cosmologists and scientists, not afraid of peer review and the accepted scientific method.
The general solid stance and highly successful nature of the three theories in cosmology today, should mean that all will probably be part and parcel of any future QGT.
I have no idea how that applies to anything I said. All of my criticism is squarely directed at the offender, Reiku, the perma-banned nitwit who appears to be reincarnated as the sock puppet calling himself Nightshift. My remarks were not lodging anything against you. I merely offered you some insight into why his OP is defective. I took it that you were giving him license to operate as a free thinker, perhaps unaware of the gaping holes in what he wrote even before he got to the nonsense of the title. That would be understandable, since, as I recall, you're not familiar with the math I was describing. But I also don't think you would cut and paste formulas and symbols taken from higher math and pretend to throw them on the ground like a shaman reading the bones, and then conjure up a bunch of baloney like this. In that regard I thought you'd find some common ground with what I wrote about him.
If you're reacting to my remarks about Einstein, that was just a little historical perspective. You can arrive at the same conclusion by looking at his opening remarks about Maxwell and Lorentz in his 1905 paper, and of course the math he writes borrows directly from them. That was just to say that there is nothing particularly fringe about him. Leading edge, yes, but wholly synthesizing ideas from the work products of his predecessors. Obviously that included a huge amount of insight and huge development of ideas only nuanced by his predecessors. But Maxwell was a genius too as was Gauss and could just as likely be thought of as "out of the mainstream" insofar as their work completely unhinged all of classical physics from its moorings and set it floating down the river where Einstein would have otherwise drowned in obscurity if not for that ship coming in, as it were. And fueled by Poincarre and Lorentz who I think might be considered maybe a little edgier than Einstein. I guess it depends on how we define 'mainstream' in an era in which the periodic table was just beginning to take shape. The Balmer and Rydberg formulas were still relatively fresh, and Lyman was just about to expand on them; the principal quantum number was a new enough enigma to send all the main players back to the drawing board, only for them to emerge with quantum physics. A lot of very important things were coming down fast and furious . . . I imagine most textbooks were obsolete within 3 years, or else maybe most of this was passed along at the universities through chalk-talks.
In any case, I didn't disparage you in any way, nor do I see why you'd react to my post with anything other than some information to supplement what I said, or even to offer counterpoint if you might be so inclined.
This is your opportunity to speak to the science, if you're so inclined. You're not the magnet for rebuttal here; Reiku is. He will dig his hole deeper and deeper and I suspect at some point he will either bail out, the more we mention 'Reiku', and/or perhaps prepare a few new sock puppets for later deployment while he reaches into his list for the next one to activate.