|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/19/13 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:59 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/19/13 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 9:55 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote: On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Our mathematics is useless without our ability to predict. Give me an example. Falied to predict accelerated expansion of the universe. failed to predict the galactic motion correctly. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model- Cosmological constant and cold dark matters are add on epicyles....that is post-diction not prediction. You mean like Ptolemy? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/19/13 3:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/19/13 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 12:22 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the universe. There is a version of General Relativity, that does indeed model the accelerated expansion of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model- Post-dictions don't count. Says you? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 19, 12:46*pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote: On 2/19/2013 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 12:22 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. * * How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the universe. yes they do. what makes you think they don't? If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/19/13 3:57 PM, kenseto wrote:
If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. That's a really lame argument, Seto. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 19, 4:54*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/19/13 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 11:59 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/19/13 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 9:55 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote: On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. * * * How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Our mathematics is useless without our ability to predict. * * *Give me an example. Falied to predict accelerated expansion of the universe. failed to predict the galactic motion correctly. * * See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model- Cosmological constant and cold dark matters are add on epicyles....that is post-diction not prediction. * *You mean like Ptolemy? Yes. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 19, 5:10*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/19/13 3:57 PM, kenseto wrote: If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. * *That's a really lame argument, Seto. No wormy....that's a logical arguement. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/19/2013 3:57 PM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 12:46 pm, Absolutely Vertical wrote: On 2/19/2013 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 12:22 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the universe. yes they do. what makes you think they don't? If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 20, 6:09*am, Absolutely Vertical
wrote: On 2/19/2013 3:57 PM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 12:46 pm, Absolutely Vertical wrote: On 2/19/2013 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote: On Feb 19, 12:22 am, Sam Wormley wrote: On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote: 1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe disagrees with the predictions. * * *How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations? Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the universe. yes they do. what makes you think they don't? If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On 2/20/2013 7:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. 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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe
On Feb 20, 3:23*pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote: On 2/20/2013 7:42 AM, kenseto wrote: If they do then they would not award Nobel to those astronomers who discovered the accelerated expansion. The discovery was a surprise and not predicted by current theories. 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. |
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 04:48 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 08:34 PM |