Why do YECs believe the universe is only a few thousand years old?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Oh, sorry about ignoring the post That is one of the assumptions I don't agree with. One of the main ones, in fact. A lot of the current models in science work if photons have 0 mass, however, not all of them do. If one assumes that photons have mass, which has yet to be accurately measured, then a clearer picture results.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Which assumption?

And what doesn't work if they have zero mass?

If photons have mass it destroys pretty much most of theoretical physics which currently works very well.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Exactly what I am saying. Photons having mass destroys most everything in current physics, which is why I don't have a lot to work with. I assume nothing (or at least try not to ).

As for what doesn't currently work, there are particles that have been proposed that haven't been found, unaccounted energies and masses, etc. They are all there, creeping around in many experiments. Only when light's mass is found can new, more complete, theories be made.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

It destroys everything that works extremely well. That is not progress it is lunacy.

Of course you have nothing to work with - because you cannot formulate anything that works based upon your assumptions.

You are on a fool's errand.

Why not put the time into learning physics - not messing around with pure unadulterated junk.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I did put large amounts of my time into learning physics, and what I saw didn't fit together. Everytime someone was close to a major discover, disaster, something needed wasn't found, back to the drawing board. I think this is lunacy. Take this basic set of equations, solving for x.

x=x^2
x=2x+1

Is there a real solution to this set?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Your point being?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Well, the answer is imaginary if there is one. How then do you get a real solution to work?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Why do you think that only real numbers exist?

Why not draw the line at integers or rational numbers?

To what extent do any numbers "exist"?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Don't worry about answering this one Karl, this is for our PhD friend Captain Jack Sparrow who is good at math.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nah. 'S a free board. I'm sure Cap'n Jack has an answer as well.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thats what I am hoping. He seems to take pleasure in trying to prove everything I say about my beliefs and myself wrong, but has yet to solve this unutterably simple problem.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Yet to solve?? I went to bed.

As you know there are no solutions of those equations simultaneously.

x=x^2 has solutions of x=0 or x=1

x=2x+1 has a solution of x=-1.

Thus no real (or complex) solution of both exist - the solution is a null set over Z.

What is the point of this?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

How can you then have a common real solution?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Who said anything about a common real solution. I didn't.

You brought this up without any reference to anything we were discussing. Why don't you back up and explain what the purpose of this is.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I said something about a common real solution. How do you get a common real solution?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Whoa. back up.

I never brought this math thing up. You did - but you never said why.

Why?

There is no real solution to the expressions you listed. So what? I don't see any relevance to the discussion at hand.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Does your constant ranting about the unproven have anything to do with anything either? Answer the question

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

You have gone off on a strange tangent here. I was stating accepted theory that is theoretically consistent, observationally verified and experimentally tested.

You on the other hand have invented nonsense to explain things that are already explained and in doing so failed to understand basic physics.

You are attempting to solve non-existent problems with ad hoc non-existent physics.

Why the heck you brought up those two equations and started asking about solutions I have still no idea.

To repeat - my stuff is backed up by decades of research by thousands of physicists - your stuff is fantasy to explain phantom problems with the basic physics wrong.

Why do you think you have never got anyone in the science community to take your stuff seriously?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I do not believe it is I who began this tangent about physics. I was kind enough to answer your questions, I ask for a few simple answers here.

Do note that this is greatly relevant to physics.

PS
My stuff is also backed by decades of research and by thousands of physicists. You must begin to look at things from all sides before you can see the big picture.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I do not believe it is I who began this tangent about physics. I was kind enough to answer your questions, I ask for a few simple answers here.

Do note that this is greatly relevant to physics.

PS
My stuff is also backed by decades of research and by thousands of physicists. You must begin to look at things from all sides before you can see the big picture.

We had many posts about physics then you popped up the math question which seemed a disconnect from the discussion. I still don't know what your point is with that.

Your stuff is backed by no physicists at all. No research - no theory. I am pretty well read physics wise and have spent all of my adult life as a research physicist and I have never heard of anything like your stuff (except on a crank website perhaps.)

Photons as a pair of particles orbiting - one positive one negative mass. Come on - this is padded cell, lunatic babbling.

Show me one, just one, research paper or conference proceeding espousing such a view.

Show me just one physics department at any recognised university with work in these areas.

Show me just one that has this supernovae antimatter argument.

Just one - Just one.