Objects only exist in the mind. Objects definitely have properties. Objects are not real.
If you do not model something as a circle there is no radius to measure. thus the model came first.
-
Features
Infinte Regress Timeline...
- Thread starter none
- Start date
ryan
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 4,668
- Location
- In a McDonalds in the q space
- Basic Beliefs
- a little of everything
I couldn't help but post this article after reading it, lol, http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
ryan
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 4,668
- Location
- In a McDonalds in the q space
- Basic Beliefs
- a little of everything
Yeah, it doesn't close the book on this topic, (at least for me it doesn't) but I just had to post it.
yeah, it's only a theory based on mathematical theorems.
What I found is the estimate given by Einstein about the size of the universe based on his calculations using his famous "Cosmological Considerations" (1917):
"The whole universe has a diameter of about 180 million light years, in round numbers.That amounts to about 700 trillion miles (700 x 10^18 using England's trillion) It follows from the mathematical calculations which I have presented in "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity", in which the figure I have just quoted is not given. The exact figure is a minor question, what is important is to recognize that the universe may be regarded as a closed continuum as far as distance measurements are concerned."
This rough estimate given by this individual is enough to recognize that his "cosmological Considerations" are not an error, those are pseudoscience. Today the rough estimate of the diameter of the universe is billions and billions of miles.
And, in the future, if our lenses can perceive further, the new estimate will be perhaps trillions of miles, proving that the theories always fail. The problem is not the failing of the theories but the refusal of recognition that their theories failed. And this causes those theories to pass from theories of science into theories of pseudoscience.
When a theory is proved false the theory is discarded. What relativists have made is to "update" a failed theory, something that is called fraud. No one has updated the theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, because that theory has been discarded. New theories with different names may be taking place using similar arguments, like Flat earth theory, but the original theory has been discarded and relativity should have been discarded since 1919.
Mr. Einstein's last years were dedicated to unify his theory with Quantum Mechanics, but he died without the fulfilling of this purpose.
Later, suddenly from nothing, the theory of Relativity walked hand to hand with Quantum mechanics like girlfriends walking in the park. Who was the "genius" with more capacity than Einstein, who finally unified relativity with quantum mechanics? Of course, nobody knows. It was a scientific miracle!
And when we talk of miracles we talk of beliefs, and when we talk of beliefs we must be as well talking of pseudoscience.
On the other hand, when we have a theory claiming that the whole universe comes from a microscopic but very dense particle, surely the author of such idea is talking pseudoscience.
If we make a deep scrutiny on the current theories of science, most of them will easily come to this topic of pseudoscience.
"The whole universe has a diameter of about 180 million light years, in round numbers.That amounts to about 700 trillion miles (700 x 10^18 using England's trillion) It follows from the mathematical calculations which I have presented in "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity", in which the figure I have just quoted is not given. The exact figure is a minor question, what is important is to recognize that the universe may be regarded as a closed continuum as far as distance measurements are concerned."
This rough estimate given by this individual is enough to recognize that his "cosmological Considerations" are not an error, those are pseudoscience. Today the rough estimate of the diameter of the universe is billions and billions of miles.
And, in the future, if our lenses can perceive further, the new estimate will be perhaps trillions of miles, proving that the theories always fail. The problem is not the failing of the theories but the refusal of recognition that their theories failed. And this causes those theories to pass from theories of science into theories of pseudoscience.
When a theory is proved false the theory is discarded. What relativists have made is to "update" a failed theory, something that is called fraud. No one has updated the theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, because that theory has been discarded. New theories with different names may be taking place using similar arguments, like Flat earth theory, but the original theory has been discarded and relativity should have been discarded since 1919.
Mr. Einstein's last years were dedicated to unify his theory with Quantum Mechanics, but he died without the fulfilling of this purpose.
Later, suddenly from nothing, the theory of Relativity walked hand to hand with Quantum mechanics like girlfriends walking in the park. Who was the "genius" with more capacity than Einstein, who finally unified relativity with quantum mechanics? Of course, nobody knows. It was a scientific miracle!
And when we talk of miracles we talk of beliefs, and when we talk of beliefs we must be as well talking of pseudoscience.
On the other hand, when we have a theory claiming that the whole universe comes from a microscopic but very dense particle, surely the author of such idea is talking pseudoscience.
If we make a deep scrutiny on the current theories of science, most of them will easily come to this topic of pseudoscience.
Underseer
Contributor
Relativity also predicts that there is no beginning, which is why William Lane Craig has been reduced to trying to disprove relativity with a syllogism. (This is actually related to Craig's "disproof" of infinity, which is related to his attempt to disprove an established theory without saying thing one about the evidence.
Oh, and the Big Bang Theory doesn't attempt to explain the beginning nor even comment on whether or not there is a beginning, so this is not a challenge to BBT except in the minds of theists who have no idea what the Big Bang theory actually is.
Underseer
Contributor
yeah, it's only a theory based on mathematical theorems.
No, it's a theory based on evidence. If it were based on something other than evidence, it would be called a hypothesis, not a theory.