Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Mar 3, 2019.
so you are saying that matter is like an egg?
what do you mean by rotational movement?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
To have length implies breadth .
360 degrees in a circle . Each degree and smaller is a line with breadth .
Without breadth there is no length .
I think we're talking to a random quote generator.
So you're not talking about a point as defined in mathematics, but something else. Is that right?
I think that his post was pointless.
That's right .
A point in mathematics
The point is not a element of space .
Because the point is non-physical .
so you are introducing your own definition on what is a point?
How long did that duck-and-cover take to think up?
I never thought that a point had anything to do with space . Nor energy and matter
To me a point was on a line , anywhere . In the imagination of mathematics . Nothing physical .
I looked up again what a , point is , in mathematics .
Okay, so you have your own definition of what a point is. I still don't understand how that is relevant to the big bang theory, which uses regular mathematics.
Uses regular mathematics ?
The big bang theory is a theory in physics. Physicists make quantitative comparisons between theory and observations using mathematics. In particular, physicists use mathematical ideas like points, and lines, and volumes. More specifically, when physicists refer to a mathematical point in a theory or a mathematical calculation, they use the regular mathematical definition of a point - i.e. a geometrical object with no length, breadth or height - zero dimensions.
To your last statement , exactly why BB leads to a nothing conclusion .
Nothing is non-dimensional . Nothing can never exist . Ever
In reality the Universe is three dimensional . It is a sphere of energy ( with inner depth ) , matter and life .
sounds like a religious statement. Are you writing a new bible or starting a new cult?
who said that bb says that?
Gad no .
But the big bang theory doesn't lead to a nothing conclusion. On the contrary, it reliably explains a number of aspects of our observable universe which would otherwise remain unexplained. It explains why we see distant galaxies red-shifted. It explains the relative ratios of the lightest chemical elements that we observe in nature. It explains the observed microwave background radiation. And more.
The big bang theory, among other things, is a mathematical model that we use to make predictions about the physical world. The mathematical contents of the model do not "exist" as real objects in the world. The same can be said about any theory in mathematical physics. What the theory says is "if you look at X in the real world, then if the model is correct you should observe behaviour Y."
Physicists are well aware that even the mathematical description of the initial "singularity" of the big bang probably needs to be modified. As it stands, our understanding of the physics of the very small, under conditions of very high gravity, is not good enough to be confident that any particular modification of the best model is correct. It's a work in progress.
Why do you think it's a sphere?
Anyway BB does not explain the fundamental existence of anything . BB is the consequence of the physical .
But can not explain the foundation of its physical form .
But I just told you that it explains the microwave background radiation, the relative ratios of light elements and the red-shift of distance galaxies. Aren't all of those "things"?
I have no idea what that you mean by that.
So we agree then. Good.
Separate names with a comma.