Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Cosmology of Mr. Mayer
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 7 of 90 (614575)
05-05-2011 5:24 AM 		Reply to: Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein
05-01-2011 9:00 AM

Can I clarify that one of your points is that time passes at differing rates depending on how far away two points are?
​
Can you show me some maths for that?
​
Jesus Saves! The rest of the party take full damage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-01-2011 9:00 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 05-05-2011 1:03 PM Larni has not replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 84 of 90 (634039)
09-18-2011 1:01 PM 		Reply to: Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 10:51 PM

Re: Reflections after this while
It seems to me that Mayer is pointing out what physicists already know.
​
You even have a physicist telling you that: where is the beef?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 10:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 4:51 PM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 86 of 90 (634058)
09-18-2011 6:21 PM 		Reply to: Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 4:51 PM

Re: Reflections after this while
Lawd abav!
​
None ov that reaches da critical Gary Nevel ov eighteen pence what allows me ter see where da itchy teef is.
​
But i' is late so I'll 'ave anuvver 'ry when I've got some kip.
​
Sorted mate, be lucky!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 4:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 7:20 PM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 89 of 90 (634086)
09-19-2011 3:25 AM 		Reply to: Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-18-2011 7:20 PM

Re: Reflections after this while
My point was that I did not understand what you had written and that I would have another go after I slept.
​
Nothing to do with football or the pub: just another layered, sideways irreverent comment on the delusion of comprehension some posters display.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
​
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
​
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-18-2011 7:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-19-2011 4:04 AM Larni has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024