Found your shift key, huh? Well done! — Kenosha Kid
Well, much more than 37bn. Part of inflation theory is that the universe must be much, much larger than the observable universe. However, no magic necessary, just counting. 2c for two adjacent points. Next add a third. You have points A, B and C in a row. A is receding from B at almost the speed of light. B is receding from C at roughly the same speed. How fast is A receding from C? — Kenosha Kid
heuristic I think can be viewed as a tool, even if it is a kind of abstraction and cognition, but Science is a very complicated process with built in attitudes. — Bylaw
More like a terrible hypothesis though. Anyway, this stuff is not even science at all, so it shouldn't be presented as an example of science, or, counterpunch.an example of scientific failure. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are insane. — Kenosha Kid
Cosmology – a central branch of metaphysics, that studies the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. — Wikipedia: Outline of Metaphysics
Right, we know how you use that word "insane": " the 'inflationary period', while brief, was insanely rapid". — Metaphysician Undercover
Since you have absolutely no idea as to any of the specifics concerning this "insanely rapid" expansion, it makes no sense for you to call this "science". — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, I'm using the word an insane amount of times. But in this case, I just meant that you're quite mad. — Kenosha Kid
Sad preacher nailed upon the coloured door of time
Insane teacher be there reminded of the rhyme
There'll be no mutant enemy we shall certify
Political ends, as sad remains, will die
Reach out as forward tastes begin to enter you
— Yes, And You and I
Modelling, hypothesis, observation: so far, so scientific, not to mention that inflationary cosmology comes from scientific research groups, not philosophical ones, and the founders of the theory have won prizes for breakthroughs in science, not metaphysics. — Kenosha Kid
So on that level, calling it metaphysics not science is insane — Kenosha Kid
But I think that calling an hypothesis "science", when the hypothesis is not at all consistent with observations, as the need to assume mystical, magical entities like "dark matter" and "dark energy" demonstrates, is worse than insanity, it's intellectual dishonesty. — Metaphysician Undercover
more generally your approach in all such conversations of:
1. doing no research into a field
2. demonstrating no understanding of that field
3. concluding from your zero understanding that the field must be at fault
4. concluding from your deduction that you must know more than anyone else
is extremely pathological, and not in any beneficial way. — Kenosha Kid
you can dismiss it all by saying that the metaphysician has no understanding of that field — Metaphysician Undercover
just because I do not understand how the universe can be 14bn years old, and 93bn light years across - if nothing can travel faster than light. — counterpunch
That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! — counterpunch
Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right.No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch
No. It's not. And that's why Popper is wrong. — counterpunch
Actually Popper's only hard thesis was that humans and as a result their knowledge is subject to error. So, if you prove him wrong you are proving him right. — Cheshire
It doesn't take a scientist to understand metaphysics.. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.