Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Various Pre Big Bang Scenarios Discussed By Pros


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#52 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 05:28 PM

There is a frame-dragging effect which is well-known in literature, called dark flow. Also primordial evidence suggests that there was a spinning property after a measurement of galaxies showing they preferred a specific handedness.



#53 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 05:36 PM

There is a frame-dragging effect which is well-known in literature, called dark flow. Also primordial evidence suggests that there was a spinning property after a measurement of galaxies showing they preferred a specific handedness.

 

I cant go any simpler than this, there is no centre of the universe but it might appear you think you are there 

 

Spinning doesnt work


Edited by Flummoxed, 16 February 2019 - 05:37 PM.


#54 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 16 February 2019 - 05:51 PM

Hawking even admitted the universe could be rotating, but would be doing so at a very slow speed. 

 

I am more read on this subject than you, 



#55 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:32 PM

There is no evidence it is spinning, or wobbling :) etc

 

There is evidence, I mean really, you should investigate a topic before you talk about it as if you are some expert on the field. Dark flow and rotational properties of galaxies demonstrate such evidence.



#56 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:34 PM

Also, there is a reason the rotation today would not fit the required expansion phase. Again you picked a reference which is uninformed. Hoyle and Narlikar showed that the rotary property of a universe rapidly drops with linear expansion.



#57 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 08:35 PM

In reference to the ''4D vs 3D'' rotation, a rotation in the way I understand it, requires that the acceleration of a universe from rotation is

 

[math]\omega \times (\omega \times r) = \frac{d\omega}{dt} \times r[/math]

 

And it is known that cross products cannot be used in any other dimensions than three or seven.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 18 February 2019 - 03:49 AM.


#58 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 07:10 AM

 

 

At the moment all you have done is wave your arms and presented no evidence in support of your claims. 

 

Don't make me laugh, I have recited credible scientists who worked in the field which show inconsistencies in your understanding of the validity of a spinning universe. I even went as far to tell you, that even Hawking admitted it, yet you use this as an excuse to attack me for a ''fringe theory.''

 

You need to get off that high ground you think you have and accept that there are others here more well-read into this subject than you. The reason I recite this ''fringe theory,'' is because there is evidence. You don't seem to know the definition of evidence and so makes this whole conversation pointless.



#59 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 10:33 AM

demonstrating even more ignorance, since you don't have a clue about the philosophy of science. It is absolutely true you cannot prove a theory, you can only add evidence to support it.

 

Just read the internet for similar claims, without putting your foot in it further.



#60 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 10:35 AM

In fact, I will save you some time, on the scientific evidence wiki page, I extract the following:

 

Utility of scientific evidence. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.



#61 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 11:40 AM

Nothing but a ****ing troll, ignoring what I have shown you and then continuing to say ''you'll laugh at it.''

 

Only person people will be laughing at is you.



#62 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 12:11 PM

Dubbelosix, on 06 Feb 2019 - 4:47 PM, said:snapback.png

Dubbelosix, on 06 Feb 2019 - 4:47 PM, said:snapback.png

Dubbelosix, on 06 Feb 2019 - 4:47 PM, said:snapback.png

Also, you cannot prove a theory wrong, another hole in your understanding of science.

 

:rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:  . I am certain I am not the only one that will be laughing themselves to sleep over this one       :rofl:     :rofl:     :rofl:


  • exchemist likes this

#63 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2488 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 03:38 PM

That might be overdoing it, but I allow myself a wry chuckle......  

 

This is characteristic Dubbelsox: black is white (and I'm a teapot)  :winknudge:

 

 

(And, so much for the "novel", eh? . Plus ça change.)


  • Flummoxed likes this

#64 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 11:54 AM

That might be overdoing it, but I allow myself a wry chuckle......  

 

This is characteristic Dubbelsox: black is white (and I'm a teapot)  :winknudge:

 

 

(And, so much for the "novel", eh? . Plus ça change.)

 

Chuckle?

 

Explain what is funny, except flummox spamming their own thread?

 

Are you seriously trying to say, you understand nothing of Popper philosophy, that is, the scientific method? You belong in the gutter along with flummox. Revel in each others misinformation.



#65 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:27 PM

I responded to the way you approached me, with hostility....  Regardless of hostility, you are no good for discussions in science if you are disingenuous, which you have demonstrated in this thread.



#66 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:28 PM

And yeah, discussion over.



#67 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2443 posts

Posted 20 February 2019 - 02:07 PM

It seems I took a break from this place at the right time - you are acting like a child. If you are not genuine enough to admit a mistake when you make one, you will never become respected, as a person or a scientist.