sure, and?
-
-
idk, sounds like research doesn't really support the particular physics you were describing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
is there evidence against universal expansion?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
there's a good question for Reza
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Who, what, where?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
evidence against universal expansion?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Now you are playing tricks you scallywag. How am I supposed to answer your question if you have already settled that within the framework of a speculative physical theory, all evidences support it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Junk_lzn and
The real question is that 'Are this theory's formal and conceptual resources realy adequate to accomodate and explain these evidences?' As long as the foundational concepts are contested, you can plug in any evidence and still get some decent theory about the fate of the universe
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
we're talking about standard cosmology here. is there any new theory out there that fundamentally contradicts even the concepts of the standard model of physics applied to large-scale objects?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is not standard cosmology as if it were real in your sense. It's only standard in terms of canonical physical theories we have 'at this point'. This is your contradiction: reality is there and you can't change it, but also there are theories which adequately reveal reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Such theories are not de facto pictures of reality, they reflect the scientific methods and concepts we have.
-
-
partially, but not only them. again, are there any good competitors at this time?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.