Science in " NON-Science " forums .

[river]

↑

What I'm looking for is an open minded , Science and Philosophy forum . That is not Stuck in traditional thinking .

Being open minded does not exclude traditional thinking.
That is exactly where you bring yourself undone. Much of traditional thinking is still the basis of science today, because it is valid thinking.
I'm open minded enough to accept that ETL should exist somewhere, sometime: But I'm not gullible enough to jump on the bandwagon of any claims of Aliens having visited Earth, let alone exist, until the evidence is forthcoming. Keeping in mind, that such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence. Afterall it answers mankind's greatest question.

Highlighted

Dark Energy and Dark Matter I have addressed . Which is mainstream thinking .

I remind those who doubt this , to explore my theory again .

My Cosmology , ( on the third page of this thread , not of this thread , but of the threads titles of discussion ) go back . To October 23 , 2018 .

 

[river]

The problem is that spacetime means nothing to any object in space .

Objects in space just do what they do . Within themselves and their interactions with other objects based on their properties . Spacetime has No cause , effect nor affect , on anything .

 

[paddoboy]

↑
Dark Energy and Dark Matter I have addressed . Which is mainstream thinking .

Not sure how you imagined you addressed them, or if you even did, but as those names suggest, there nature is somewhat unknown, although we have evidence that both exxist. DM for example, has been observed to gravitationally lense objects further afield.

I remind those who doubt this , to explore my theory again .

You don't have a theory, at least not a scientific theory.

My Cosmology , ( on the third page of this thread , not of this thread , but of the threads titles of discussion ) go back . To October 23 , 2018 .

Correct, "your cosmology" In other words an amateurish hypothetical unevidenced story, without any basis in fact.
That's what makes you happy river, that's OK.

The problem is that spacetime means nothing to any object in space .

Objects in space just do what they do . Within themselves and their interactions with other objects based on their properties . Spacetime has No cause , effect nor affect , on anything .

Nothing would exist without spacetime. Spacetime also certainly has "properties"in that its can be lensed, warped, curved, twisted and waved. These topologies have been observationally verified.

 

[river]

Not sure how you imagined you addressed them, or if you even did, but as those names suggest, there nature is somewhat unknown, although we have evidence that both exxist. DM for example, has been observed to gravitationally lense objects further afield.

You don't have a theory, at least not a scientific theory.

Correct, "your cosmology" In other words an amateurish hypothetical unevidenced story, without any basis in fact.
That's what makes you happy river, that's OK.

Nothing would exist without spacetime. Spacetime also certainly has "properties"in that its can be lensed, warped, curved, twisted and waved. These topologies have been observationally verified.

Go to my post#41 . And then from there , read up on my theory .

 

[(Q)]

↑




Highlighted

Dark Energy and Dark Matter I have addressed . Which is mainstream thinking .

I remind those who doubt this , to explore my theory again .

My Cosmology , ( on the third page of this thread , not of this thread , but of the threads titles of discussion ) go back . To October 23 , 2018 .

You mean this thread? I laughed till I cried.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-cosmology.161279/

 

[river]

Highlighted

Dark Energy and Dark Matter I have addressed . Which is mainstream thinking .

I remind those who doubt this , to explore my theory again .

My Cosmology , ( on the third page of this thread , not of this thread , but of the threads titles of discussion ) go back . To October 23 , 2018 .

You mean this thread? I laughed till I cried.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-cosmology.161279/

Your objections are ?

 

[paddoboy]

Go to my post#41 . And then from there , read up on my theory .

You don't have a theory, just a mish mash of unsupported ideas, based on Plasma/Electric universe hypotheticals, that were debunked many moons ago.

You mean this thread? I laughed till I cried.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-cosmology.161279/

river is a glutton for punishment and loves to play the victim card.

 

[river]

Anybodies objections that are to my theory , are what exactly ?

Based on the theory its self .

 

[paddoboy]

Anybodies objections that are to my theory , are what exactly ?

Based on the theory its self .

You don't have a theory, at least not a scientific one.
And of course the Electric/Plasma universes were debunked long long ago. And you have continually been told that, and continually asked for the evidence for your hypothetical idea....yet you refuse/cannot give us any evidence validating such nonsense.
And that dear river old mate, old chum is where it lies.The onus is on you making such a claim to support it. You know river that your inability to supply the evidence but still childishly and stubbornly insist on your crap, is why you have been excluded from the sciences.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Anybodies objections that are to my theory , are what exactly ?

Based on the theory its self .

And of course the Electric/Plasma universes were debunked long long ago. And you have continually been told that, and continually asked for the evidence for your hypotheticalea....yet you refuse/cannot give us any evidence validating such nonsense.
And that dear river old mate, old chum is where it lies.The onus is on you making such a claim to support it. You know river that your inability to supply the evidence but still childishly and stubbornly insist on your crap, is why you have been excluded from the sciences.

Highlighted

Do you think that kind of thinking still prevails ? pad .

Prove that I don't have a Theory .

 

[paddoboy]

Highlighted

Do you think that kind of thinking still prevails ? pad .

Of course! Unless you are able to provide evidence to resurrect that crap...obviouly you won't and you can't.
Careful river, I have read the debunked nonsense in a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened"

Prove that I don't have a Theory .

The onus is on you to show evidence that you do have a scientific theory, instead of the ongoing evidence that you keep supplying indicating how childish and ignorant you are.

 

[river]

Of course! Unless you are able to provide evidence to resurrect that crap...obviouly you won't and you can't.
Careful river, I have read the debunked nonsense in a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened"

To your first statement ; debunk me pad .

And start wherever you like .

 

[paddoboy]

To your first statement ; debunk me pad .

And start wherever you like .

The onus is on you to show evidence that you do have a scientific theory, instead of the ongoing evidence that you keep supplying indicating how childish and ignorant you are.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
To your first statement ; debunk me pad .

And start wherever you like .

The onus is on you to show evidence that you do have a scientific theory, instead of the ongoing evidence that you keep supplying indicating how childish and ignorant you are.

Debunk me pad .

 

[river]

I have read the debunked nonsense in a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" .

What did you debunck , exactly ? pad .

 

[river]

I have read the debunked nonsense in a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" .

The Author .

If I don't have this book by this Author , I will buy it . And read it .

 

[river]

The Author pad ,

I noticed that you posted in Religion ( minutes ago ) but here pad .

 

[(Q)]

Your objections are ?

The objections from others are well stated in that thread. It's all complete nonsense, there isn't a smidgen of science contained within it. It's like you're making up stuff after watching children's sci-fi cartoons.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Your objections are ?

The objections from others are well stated in that thread. It's all complete nonsense, there isn't a smidgen of science contained within it. It's like you're making up stuff after watching children's sci-fi cartoons.

And well responded to by me .

BB is not " THE " Absolute theory on the Universe .

An absolute theory never has any questions .

The Theory of BB , as being the Absolute theory of the Universe , has been Questioned for decades . By Many Very Intelligent People . As any theory of the Universe should be .

My point is that BB is Not an unquestionable theory on our Existence . Hence should not be considered the absolute understanding of the Universe .

I asked this question to my self , ( in my mid-twenties ) in thinking upon this Universe ; what does someone else think ? In understanding the Universe . How these people see it ? Which lead to Halton Arp and Hanes Alfven , which lead my to understanding of the fourth state of matter , Plasma . There is a Fourth State of Matter . Then Cosmic Plasma .

 

[(Q)]

And well responded to by me .

BB is not " THE " Absolute theory on the Universe .

An absolute theory never has any questions .

The Theory of BB , as being the Absolute theory of the Universe , has been Questioned for decades . By Many Very Intelligent People . As any theory of the Universe should be .

My point is that BB is Not an unquestionable theory on our Existence . Hence should not be considered the absolute understanding of the Universe .

No one ever said the BB was "THE" absolute theory of the Universe, or was unquestionable or that it wasn't questioned by very intelligent people. That kind of response would show you have a poor understanding of how science works.

I asked this question to my self , ( in my mid-twenties ) in thinking upon this Universe ; what does someone else think ? In understanding the Universe . How these people see it ? Which lead to Halton Arp and Hanes Alfven , which lead my to understanding of the fourth state of matter , Plasma . There is a Fourth State of Matter . Then Cosmic Plasma .

Not only was Halton Arp a loonie, but his assertions didn't fit the evidence, he was simply wrong. But, since you appear to not even know the basics of how science works, it's unlikely you would understand that.