Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again.

Schoenfeld wrote: 
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.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the Big Bang theory can see that
a small universe does *not* imply that it is young (provided that "small" refers to the spatial size, not to "small age" or something like that).

Thanks *one again* for showing that you have no clue what you are talking about.


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.


Thinking on my own does not imply accepting your nonsensical use of words.



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.


*yawn*

Hint: if that were true, I would not have been able to obtain a PhD and publish research papers on my own. But you are too dumb to understand or even know that.


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.

Hint: I've had a lot of conversation with professional cosmologists in my life, and several have already looked at my FAQ page (apparently you still didn't bother). So far, all have agreed with what I wrote.


"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.


You are confusing special with general relativity.



[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.

Err, why don't you consider for a change the possibility that it might be *you* who is wrong here? Again: several cosmologists have already looked at my FAQ, and they don't disagree with what I wrote...


> 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).


Or 3. I am right, and either points 1 or 2 apply to you.

Judging from your posting history, I'll go with 3.


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


Hint: you are not in the position to judge my level of knowledge.


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. 

Well, you still continue.


Bye,
Bjoern
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... |> Only if age was soley determined by the expansion. ... |> Despite what you say here the age of the universe has been determined ... |>>> Everything we can measure is recessing from everything else, ... synonyms RECEDE, RETREAT, RETRACT, BACK mean to move backward. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... "You are the center of your universe" type thought processing.. ... So where does the age of the universe come from? ... everything moving from everything else can be resolved to show where they ... You are creating an expansion that has no expansion point. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Need some assistance
    ... and is asking my pastor to intelligently debate the topic of Deep Time ... instance of many on the age of the universe: ... there are a tremendous number of ways of knowing that the universe, ... there are kinds of evolution other than biological). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do scientists agree on the age of the universe and earth?
    ... > dust off of my early sixties science education.) ... The age of the universe is based on observations and our theoretical ... hence the reduction of the age estimate by about 20%. ... case despite the scientists boycotting the whole proceedings. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
    ... Only if age was soley determined by the expansion. ... How do you know they are recessing if you can not provide ... for all other objects in the universe. ... And how could a big bang be a cause if no bang point ...
    (sci.physics)