|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/20/13 3:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
A new theory does not require to follow history. Seto, any new theory must accurately account for historical observation as well as make new testable predictions. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 20, 4:03*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/20/13 3:00 PM, kenseto wrote: A new theory does not require to follow history. * *Seto, any new theory must accurately account for historical * *observation as well as make new testable predictions. Yes ...It must include past accurate predictions of past theories. So what is your point? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/20/2013 3:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
oh, i don't know about that not-awarding-a-prize business. einstein was awarded a nobel prize for the theory accounting for the photoelectric effect, which was something that had been observed (again a surprise) decades earlier. same thing for the nobel prize awarded to bardeen and cooper for the theory of superconductivity, years after superconductivity was observed experimentally. on the other hand, awards were given to the fellas that found a planet neptune experimentally, even though it was predicted using newtonian gravity from two centuries previous. maybe you just don't have a clue how science works. The point is: Current theories don't predict accelerated expansion....you scientists fudged by adding the repulsive CC to make the current theories fit observations. the point is: your arguments are full of **** and reveals that you don't know how science works. things have happened historically that you say shouldn't be possible to happen. The point is you are a piece of ****. A new theory does not require to follow history. nor does a theory have to follow the rules you invent for it. as history shows. it has never followed the rules you imagine it should. that's because you don't have a clue how science works. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 20, 8:16*pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote: On 2/20/2013 3:00 PM, kenseto wrote: oh, i don't know about that not-awarding-a-prize business. einstein was awarded a nobel prize for the theory accounting for the photoelectric effect, which was something that had been observed (again a surprise) decades earlier. same thing for the nobel prize awarded to bardeen and cooper for the theory of superconductivity, years after superconductivity was observed experimentally. on the other hand, awards were given to the fellas that found a planet neptune experimentally, even though it was predicted using newtonian gravity from two centuries previous. maybe you just don't have a clue how science works. The point is: Current theories don't predict accelerated expansion....you scientists fudged by adding the repulsive CC to make the current theories fit observations. the point is: your arguments are full of **** and reveals that you don't know how science works. things have happened historically that you say shouldn't be possible to happen. The point is you are a piece of ****. A new theory does not require to follow history. nor does a theory have to follow the rules you invent for it. as history shows. it has never followed the rules you imagine it should. that's because you don't have a clue how science works. What are the rules that you claimed that I invented? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
What are the rules that you claimed that I invented? ken, are you on (new) meds? Lately, your writing skills and arguments are better and make more sense than usual. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/21/2013 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
The point is: Current theories don't predict accelerated expansion....you scientists fudged by adding the repulsive CC to make the current theories fit observations. the point is: your arguments are full of **** and reveals that you don't know how science works. things have happened historically that you say shouldn't be possible to happen. The point is you are a piece of ****. A new theory does not require to follow history. nor does a theory have to follow the rules you invent for it. as history shows. it has never followed the rules you imagine it should. that's because you don't have a clue how science works. What are the rules that you claimed that I invented? that they won't give nobel prizes to proposers of theories that make postdictions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt22 Dirac new radioactivities would also prove this theory #228Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 31st 09 03:48 AM |
Nebular Dust Cloud theory has contradictions #146; 3rd ed; AtomTotality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 15th 09 08:17 AM |
MECO theory to replace black-hole theory #41 ;3rd edition book: ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 8 | May 20th 09 01:17 AM |
Farm Theory, Also Called, Spring Theory, Yard Theory And TheEvolution Of Our Universe | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 29th 08 01:11 PM |
Origin of the universe. | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 31st 06 07:34 PM |