Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again.


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>Well if you mean to say that Big Bang theory does not require a
> >>>universe having age less than planck time (what I mean by small)
> >>
> >>"small" refers to *size* usually, not to time. You specifically said
> >>that the universe was small, not that its age was small. Problems with
> >>the English language? Or did you recognize your blunder and are now
> >>trying to wiggle out of it?
> >
> >
> > And yet another basic mistake made by Bjoern, this time in his own
> > field of research.
> >
> > hint: a small universe is a young universe.
>
> Non sequitur.

You said:
" 'small' refers to *size* usually, not to time "

Anyone with a basic understanding of relativity could've seen that a
small universe as I said implies obviously that it is young. The
smaller the younger by trivial consequence of definition.

Just because it is not the standard terminology that you rote learned
it does not make it wrong. You need to learn to think for yourself and
not rely on the thoughts and assumptions of others.

> Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
> talking about.

You, like a lot of other people on these groups, are incapable of
understanding what it is that you are supposed to know. All you do is
memorize words and phrases and equations used by others and proceed to
confuse them as the only way to describe a concept. This is not a good
approach, especially if you want to output original work.

>
> > hint2: in the context of big bang theory, space and time are an
> > inseparable entity.
>
> No, they aren't. Hint: space expands in the BBT, time doesn't. How could
> this be possible if they are inseparable?

Well if you don't understand that space and time are inseparable I
suspect you will run into much trouble in this field.

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are
doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the
two will preserve an independent reality." Hermann Minkowski, September
21, 1908.


> Thanks *one again* for showing that you don't know what you are
> talking about.

Aside from your spelling and grammar, coming from you that's a
compliment.



[snip]

>
> > Not only that, but there is the whole missign mass problem with general
> > relativity and the failure to detect inferred matter (a.k.a dark matter
> > and other non-baryonic matters).
>
> All of that is adressed in my FAQ. Why don't you finally look at it
> and educate yourself, instead of making a fool of yourself even more?

Reading a Big Bang FAQ written by someone who cant understand that a
"small universe" clearly implies a "young universe" and who can't
understand that space and time are inseparable is a bad idea. Either
1. you are incapable of understanding anything that you have not
already rote learned.

2. you are deliberately obfuscating and issuing insults (like a
troll).

I have always thought 2, but am now rather unfortunately suspecting
that it indeed is and has always been 1. <sigh>

>
> >>>>Thanks one again for showing that you don't know what you are talking
> >>>>about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On the contrary.
> >>
> >>You showed it once again in this post.
> >
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> You continued to show this with this post.

On the contrary.

>
> Bye,
> Bjoern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Broken CF seat base
    ... This is obviously going to happen from this sort of reinforcment, ... When Cody snapped his torker cx frame ... My worry would be that doing this to a cheap seatpost to reinforce a ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: Time, space and matter. Two out of three?
    ... Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: ... >> Could there be a universe with time and space but no matter? ... > Define "matter", please. ... The definition of matter in physics is clear, concise, and leaves no ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curvature of expanding universe
    ... Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: ... Do you know what "universe" means? ... >> it should have a quality of curvature with radius expanding with time. ... something to compare the present Universe's size with. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
    ... understanding is very, very limited. ... The net mass_energy of the universe is _Observed_ to be slightly negative, ... You mix many a metaphor here which makes it difficult for me to be sure what ... I posit your understanding of cosmology is very limited. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again.
    ... >> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: ... >> the SPACETIME manifold in the context of Big Bang theory. ... understanding of these concepts, ... > Stop misrepresenting what I actually said about qualifications. ...
    (sci.physics)