View Single Post
Old 8th February 2016, 11:53 PM   #298
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,626
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
OK, I didn't make it simple enough for you to understand. Perhaps I should have involved cows.

No, we haven't. As usual you don't understand the science you try to attack.

Bjarne, make up your mind: Do scientists have a clue or not? You can't just cite science when it pleases you and reject it when it doesn't.

Yes it is. I understood it immidiately, and it is crap.

Gibberish.

No.

Stubborn as a mule.

Bjarne, you don't have a clue. Sorry, but that is how it is.

Hans
It's a huge theory behind all what I claim.

If there really was something wrong, somewhere the theory should conflict with hard scientific evidence. It’s not the case. You cannot show it one single place, and that should be a problem you should recognize.

The fact is that the theory that have its own logic and require a lot of space. It is not me that decide the direction or where the theory will end, or whether or where it have to conflict with established science, or not.

The only thing I did is just to ask one single question, and this is; how would the universe looks like if the nature of space is elastic, and if particles like small whirlpools spins them self into the elastic structure of space. (if the nuclear interaction is a push / pull between two particles)

Well, there are plenty consequences.
First at all the curvature of space is true, but the curvature is not the cause of gravity, - rather gravity is caused by the elastic property of space (connecting matter and space) and hence gravity still a force.
Motion in space cannot happen without resistance, due to the same elastic property.
An absolute motion reference frame must exist. SR can only be correct understood in such absolute frame.
And I could continue the rest of the day.

As you see the theory is self-explanatory, I do not need to do much, just try to see where the main thread leads me, try to understand it, and write it down.

So as you can understand, it is like open up the gate for a wild animal.

The worse thing, - which mean your problem, - is that there are nothing to stop that wild animal.
Nowhere can you show where exactly this huge wild theory (when understood correct) will conflict with any hard evidently facts that shows it to be wrong.

Rather you can say, that everywhere where the theory demand “space” it will get it without any serious conflict with science at all, and it will even get large support everywhere where it reaches, - based on evidence and observation that shows the theory is correct.

That’s your problem..
You cannot attach it, but the theory is in fact attacking a lot you thought was true.

So what you are doing is attacking me as person, - I am only a writer, you should attach the wild unstoppable beast instead. – But you cannot, because you will be the loser.

Last edited by Bjarne; 9th February 2016 at 12:01 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top