Jim

@RyderRude FLRW is just a metric we use. It is generic, so yes it works well. The Lambda-CDM model fits the data the best, but eternal inflation is a model for a region of time when we have no data. It's really just saying "sure, that model is good, but let's say what if in this unknowable period of time"

@RyderRude the singularity part is assumed. And only in certain cosmological models. Eternal inflation, for instance, doesn't have a curvature singularity. The 14 billion years is found by doing the age integral and integrating back to when the scale factor was zero (or really close to it)

@user85795 Spring break? I don't get one. Not American. But I went to Portugal for reading week in February. It was awesome

That first figure must be where the idea for the Geoclense came from

some parts of these seem to just be "pick a word from a hat" like "Drives thrusting down"

a tulpod is an alien saucer?

@Slereah what cia person dropping what acid came up with the idea that a) flux lines are neutrinos and b) higher order (derivatives?) of flux lines are minds and thoughts??? For an intelligence agency, they seem to be lacking in it

@ACuriousMind You have me there

@ACuriousMind Aristotle said many very stupid things. Things which were logically falsifiable in his own day. Not what I'd call a model philosopher

@RyderRude Then you respond to aristotle by asking how fast a pebble falls. Then you ask if two pebbles side-by-side fall at the same rate. Then you say, if those two pebbles were connected but still took up the same volume, shouldn't they fall equally fast? Isn't that a more massive object than one pebble?

what a tool, right?

But Aristotle had no sense of these very massive objects, so he was obviously wondering about feathers versus bricks on Earth. And he would be wrong on that front

@RyderRude The answer I would give to Aristotle is that I can empirically rule out more massive objects falling faster. I have a vacuum tube with a feather and a coin in it. They both fall at the same rate. The answer I would give to a fellow science enthusiast is that it depends on your reference point. You could obviously claim that more massive objects fall faster because they cause the other body to accelerate towards them at a greater rate.

@Obama2020 My experience is that every oft cited source skips too many steps. But I would have thought Birrel Davies would be at least sort of followable

@ACuriousMind Solid evidence. This passes peer review

@ACuriousMind Scientists are ancient demonic entities

@PM2Ring sigh

see, that theory rates at least a 45

true but all stuff we like has a negative score. Correlation of 1

Check out this link and calculate your score based on what you've written here. From what you said in the comments, I calculate your theory has a score of about 25 (certainly not the worst I've seen. I recently saw one with a score of 155). Please note that we on this site only like to talk about theories that have negative scores.

nice, how about I post here what I want to type. You tell me if it's acceptable. I think I'm in between those two

lol

there's a fine line between unnecessary and unexplained

@Slereah I have, but felt those didn't merit mention

@Slereah true. But if there's no testable difference between their theory and accepted science, Imma stick with the latter. Heuristic or no

I'm getting really tired of people with personal theories who do nothing but subscribe to the principle of Occam's Beard Hair Growth Tonic

@user4539917 Obviously not. That doesn't result in predictions that are inconsistent with observations

@user4539917 "rest mass"..... Ewwwwwwww! Please don't use that. If it was a thing, then between that and length contraction, fast moving objects would be black holes that cease to be black holes when they slow down

@ACuriousMind Alas that I know so little about geons! My life is over! I shall diminish and go into the West and remain GaJimdriel

@user250478 Why is it sad that they don't know about geons? Not every physicist studies theoretical particles.

@Hypernova good luck with that. It's weird to focus on something that didn't work out in the past like that, but if you succeed then I guess everybody wins. If I were you, I'd look for the stuff GR doesn't explain well and see if any other new idea might fill in the gaps, because GR will have to be a special case solution of any more generally applicable theory.

@Hypernova The widely accepted and thoroughly tested theory of general relativity successfully explains all of the observations of that experiment with no need to involve an ether. Given that it also explains far more than any theory involving an ether, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't one

@user726941 what's up?

chatjax

@safesphere The radial distance from the surface to the center is only timelike to observers that have crossed the horizon. As we sit outside of the horizon, it is still spacelike to us. We can map it as an actual distance. In fact, we can't say that only the radial distance becomes timelike. Since it's a change in the sign of the metric, either the entire dimension becomes timelike, or none of it does. For an observer past the horizon, all space everywhere is timelike. For us, there is no timelike space. But we can talk about what it will be like when we cross the horizon, of course.

So if you can rework your theory to have a negative score, I'll take a good long look at it (and also, you'll make that day my favourite day)

@SatyajitPatidar Check out this link and calculate your score based on what you've written here. From what you said in the comments, I calculate your theory has a score of about 25 (certainly not the worst I've seen. I recently saw one with a score of 155). Please note that we on this site only like to talk about theories that have negative scores (it's not site policy or anything, just a good correlation).

I see, I shall do this. I am interested to learn how there can be no largest integer and yet no integer of transfinite length

anything used for quantification

I said it is all numbers whose square is positive definite. I define it using a necessary condition

so my number would be real, it has no decimals, but not an integer?

circular?

this is specious reasoning. My inability to tell you the number doesn't imply it isn't an integer any more than my inability to tell you Cantor's first name implies he doesn't have one

a very small number

it remains finite but continues growing forever. It have transfinite length

yes, my point is that you'd continue forever because it's never not an integer

@Astyx when did I write that?

seems easy to inverse that

so 33333?