Quote:
Quote by: gallo  But it won't be done in this little bit of pseudoscience.
You can call it whatever you want, but it is not, never has been and never will be a scientific theory.
Truly, it is not a theory but not for the reasons that you state. You see, a theory is an explanation for observed events. If something can be observed, then it may, in fact, have a theory that explains it. You speak like most scientific illiterates in that you think that a scientific theory is some sort of wild guess that can some day grow up to be a fact. Go and learn something.
Note in the definition of pseudoscience that your statements so far are excellent examples of the first point: pseudoscience makes use of vague and exaggerated or untestable claims. First of all, do you even know what a black hole is? What is the "other side" of the universe? Specifically, where have they been observed to "seem" to consume "illuminated" solar systems. What do you mean by "illuminated?" What is a solar system?
Obviously you have no understanding of what is meant by the relativistic terms used in talking about the nature of space/time. The curvature of space does not act as a lens that reverses what we see. Your statement is a prime example of pseudoscience.
But why would time be reversed? What does that have to do with the curvature of space?
Balderdash. Since there were no such "eye witness" observations, we know nothing of the sort. Where is this magical black hole that spits out solar systems? Please explain the physics by which the alleged production of solar systems happens. You know, you're going to have to rewrite a whole bunch of well understood physics before your "theory" can be given consideration without gales of laughter. Good luck with that.
What supportive evidence? You haven't given any?
Maybe speaking in mumbo-jumbo should be added to the list of the characteristics of pseudoscience. Do you think that your above statements actually carry meaningful discussion?
Or, the gap will be filled with meaningless and obscure pseudoscience that teach us nothing and explain nothing while bordering on religion itself.
No doubt what he was trying to do. He certainly didn't explain anything.
He was talking about the solar system, not the universe. |
You have a number of complaints and I will try to respond to a few of them.
First off, I am not a scientist and never stated such. Nor are you (based on your words). Science is about using things (like chemicals and so forth) to do things, workable things that they have already discovered through experiments and testing. A theory is speculation that is based on a few known factors and then coming up with a possible reality, which must remain only as a theory until all peer reviews and future testings have been completed and it can be said to be a fact. A theory is not " a completed scientific project" nor even all that scientific in most cases. Again science is about creating chemical compounds, electric light bulbs, and things that we can use in everyday life. Math (by any name) is not science, so why ask for that? Math is a useful tool for some science projects but when it is used to create theories that is all it does, create a theory but not an abosolute fact. You can find the math to prove anything if you got the brains to do so, everyone in that Biz knows that.
I am offering something for others to think about.
According to most scientific thinking since Darwin people have believed that one thing led to another thing, meaning that the same basic principle is repeated over and over and evolved upon or slightly alternated from. That is why the seed of a tree is much like the egg of a tultle - the same idea of "hatching" is evident in an wide range of living things. Your own body was formed inside of a womb and channeled "into the light" from a black hole. Like it or not (we know that much nowadays). The theory I presented conforms to that standard "process". That process had to have some "background" as part of the on-going mementum that was begat at the first moment of time (asumming time is not orbital). The theory fits the mode of operation that we know about in the universe as expressed in life on earth.
The illuminated solar system is one with a sun. The sun is light energy but we can also have dark energy, a black hole would be a mass of dark energy before it transforms into light energy. Which differences only has to do with human abilites to see things in those terms.
The earth's dark energy can transform into light energy as Ben Franklin found out, as a "lightening bolt" when it conflicts with energy from storm clouds.
In the Big Bang theory they report that imploding gass triggered the nuclear type reaction that effected the universe (more details are outlined). In my theory a timewave of energy imploded into a whirpool motion and impacted it's (relatively) still center of "nowness" and then exploded through the otherside as "light energy" ( aka the sun or as a star). The sun would then represent the "now" center of our solar system from which we gather our interpretaion of time in motion.
This theory conforms to the theory of relativity. That is why a Buddist type person can focus inwardly and as they move close to their still center of their mind they experience a profound "moment of nowness" and new ideas come froth from out of that enlightenment which came out of a black hole in the center of all thoughts that are in motion around a relative center of sitllness.
Be still and know.
It "fits" because it is repeated in all factors of being that we might concider.