4 ms·

tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Sci

by NHQ 4y ago

tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Science is ideological at the point.

simion314 4y ago
That is cheap words, show me a better mathematics or a better science or a better model. Black holes were proposed by theory and thought experiemnts and then we found them, this tells me the model were good. Now your move, tell me what your model predicts and let's see if you can prove it.
- NHQ 4y ago
  You found a black hole? Show me the black hole, I want to see it! Is it next to the big bang? Is it closer to the infinitely expanding edges of the dying universe? If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe. You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe. I copied from another comment of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day. My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far). Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.
  - simion314 4y ago
    Can you link to your super simple model? Does it have a name? I would read about it/ I read a book that was promoting the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton, I like interesting ideas but they must also have some inteligent stuff in it , even if our universe is not based on your cosmology maybe it is a valid thing that an universe could be based on.

by NHQ 4y ago

tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Science is ideological at the point.

simion314 4y ago

That is cheap words, show me a better mathematics or a better science or a better model. Black holes were proposed by theory and thought experiemnts and then we found them, this tells me the model were good. Now your move, tell me what your model predicts and let's see if you can prove it.

NHQ 4y ago
You found a black hole? Show me the black hole, I want to see it! Is it next to the big bang? Is it closer to the infinitely expanding edges of the dying universe? If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe. You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe. I copied from another comment of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day. My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far). Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.
- simion314 4y ago
  Can you link to your super simple model? Does it have a name? I would read about it/ I read a book that was promoting the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton, I like interesting ideas but they must also have some inteligent stuff in it , even if our universe is not based on your cosmology maybe it is a valid thing that an universe could be based on.