Guyau Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 .Further evidence that the universe will expand forever: new test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 . . .Region of note, adding radio astronomy to microwave:Is large cold spot a void? (no ordinary matter, no dark matter, only E-M radiation and dark energy)http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/void/http://webusers.astro.umn.edu/~larry/coldspot.pdfIs large cold spot a texture? (a type of topological defect in spacetime, from Higgs field symmetry-breaking phase transition)http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.5737v1.pdfhttp://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/cosmos/viz/movi...exturesciam.pdf. . .The WMAP cold spot has been corroborated by Planck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Later on Hoyle showed the Cosmos to be expanding by detecting the red-shift of light from distant galaxies. Einstein realized his error based on Hoyle's findings.Do you mean Hubble (not Hoyle)?Ellen___Ooops. Yes. Hubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I came up with a parallel of the following skeptic argument and I think it brings to light in a greater contrast the lunacy of such "reasoning".The argument is that since we cannot know of variables that may affect a situation we cannot be certain of the conclusion we have based on the variables we do know of.The lunacy of this type of reasoning is exposed in greater contrast when you apply it to mathematics.We know that 1+1=2. If a skeptic is to be consistent ( I know getting a skeptic to be consistent is far fetched but let's all just pretend for a moment.)..... if the skeptic is to be consistent, he must answer that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 because there may in fact be an unknown variable in the math problem that he doesn't know about. Such as 1x + 1 = 3. A rational person realizes that we now are no longer be dealing with 1+ 1 = 2 while the skeptic being unable to conceptualize higher than a lobotimized cock roach considers this proof that we can't be certain of anything.1 + 1 =.2 by definition (assuming Peano Arithmetic). Every integer has a successor. 2 is the successor of 1. It can be shown by induction that n + 1 = successor of n. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now