(February 25, 2012 at 9:13 am)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:00 am)chipan Wrote: No that's not the the theory. The theory is that our galaxy is the center of the universe. There is a 4th dimension of space (not Including time as that is not space). This space is curving inward toward the center, creating a time distortion that makes billions of years of interactions happen closer to the edge. Many of these processes are complimentary to Einstein's theory of relativity.

As I said before fuckhead, it isn't a theory it's a hypothesis. It is your job to tell us how it can be falsified and then you must perform that test. If successful then you would have to show what predictions it makes. Then you would have to test those predictions and even then it wouldn't be a theory.

On another note you might wonder why I am hostile to you and show no respect. I'll tell you, you respect nobody and you show that lack by ignoring what people say, you ignore science when people show it to you and most importantly when you are shown evidence that contradicts your beliefs, instead of admitting you were wrong (or even admitting your belief is faith based not scientific, reasonable or logical), you ignore what was said. I for one will never respect you if you continue your bullshit.

BTW, space has been shown to be flat to an accuracy of .001%. It is actually pretty intuitive. Think about it, even a balloon's surface (definitely a curved surface) approaches flatness to a greater degree the larger it gets.

(February 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm)chipan Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:13 am)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:00 am)chipan Wrote: No that's not the the theory. The theory is that our galaxy is the center of the universe. There is a 4th dimension of space (not Including time as that is not space). This space is curving inward toward the center, creating a time distortion that makes billions of years of interactions happen closer to the edge. Many of these processes are complimentary to Einstein's theory of relativity.

As I said before fuckhead, it isn't a theory it's a hypothesis. It is your job to tell us how it can be falsified and then you must perform that test. If successful then you would have to show what predictions it makes. Then you would have to test those predictions and even then it wouldn't be a theory.

On another note you might wonder why I am hostile to you and show no respect. I'll tell you, you respect nobody and you show that lack by ignoring what people say, you ignore science when people show it to you and most importantly when you are shown evidence that contradicts your beliefs, instead of admitting you were wrong (or even admitting your belief is faith based not scientific, reasonable or logical), you ignore what was said. I for one will never respect you if you continue your bullshit.

BTW, space has been shown to be flat to an accuracy of .001%. It is actually pretty intuitive. Think about it, even a balloon's surface (definitely a curved surface) approaches flatness to a greater degree the larger it gets.

Well I understand your interest for evidence supporting this theory. This theory was developed by Dr Russell Humphreys. I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the evidence so much but he can.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.y...pO6uOja-JA

(February 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm)chipan Wrote: I'm not a scientist

(February 25, 2012 at 8:46 pm)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm)chipan Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:13 am)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:00 am)chipan Wrote: No that's not the the theory. The theory is that our galaxy is the center of the universe. There is a 4th dimension of space (not Including time as that is not space). This space is curving inward toward the center, creating a time distortion that makes billions of years of interactions happen closer to the edge. Many of these processes are complimentary to Einstein's theory of relativity.

As I said before fuckhead, it isn't a theory it's a hypothesis. It is your job to tell us how it can be falsified and then you must perform that test. If successful then you would have to show what predictions it makes. Then you would have to test those predictions and even then it wouldn't be a theory.

On another note you might wonder why I am hostile to you and show no respect. I'll tell you, you respect nobody and you show that lack by ignoring what people say, you ignore science when people show it to you and most importantly when you are shown evidence that contradicts your beliefs, instead of admitting you were wrong (or even admitting your belief is faith based not scientific, reasonable or logical), you ignore what was said. I for one will never respect you if you continue your bullshit.

BTW, space has been shown to be flat to an accuracy of .001%. It is actually pretty intuitive. Think about it, even a balloon's surface (definitely a curved surface) approaches flatness to a greater degree the larger it gets.

Well I understand your interest for evidence supporting this theory. This theory was developed by Dr Russell Humphreys. I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the evidence so much but he can.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.y...pO6uOja-JA

Then you are both a liar and a fool. It isn't your "theory" nor does Humphreys call it a theory (he says thesis which means either unproven assumption or a statement to be proven). Humphrys has an obvious bias being a fellow of the creation institute. Besides this isn't evidence based science. It is his version of a Texas sharpshooter fallacy meaning he worked backwards from a conclusion. I would put him in the batshit insane category.

(February 25, 2012 at 8:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm)chipan Wrote: I'm not a scientist

And herein lies the trouble. "The Texas Sharpshooter Origins Thesis"..hehehe.

(February 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm)chipan Wrote: Sorry I dont believe I made myself clear in that respect. I did say my theory to simply say that it is the theory in which I believe. I did not say nor intend you to take it that I myself came up with the theory. And it has actually stood up to scientific scrutiny like you said it must do in peer review journals.

(February 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Got a link to all the scrutiny it stood up to? Love to see that. Youtube videos and book deals aren't exactly peer review. "Like peer review" does not stand in for peer review. I just checked his pubs list and nowhere is his work at the creation institute (or any thesis or theory or hypothesis of his that would be associated) cited as a publication in any peer reviewed journal. Just creationist circlejerks.
http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

(February 25, 2012 at 9:15 pm)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm)chipan Wrote: Sorry I dont believe I made myself clear in that respect. I did say my theory to simply say that it is the theory in which I believe. I did not say nor intend you to take it that I myself came up with the theory. And it has actually stood up to scientific scrutiny like you said it must do in peer review journals.

No it hasn't withstood criticism and most importantly you quoted me saying the universe has been shown to be flat, you ignored that simply because it contradicts Humphreys thesis. Why are you still calling it a fucking theory? Are you brain damaged or just hopelessly stupid?

---

(February 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Got a link to all the scrutiny it stood up to? Love to see that. Youtube videos and book deals aren't exactly peer review. "Like peer review" does not stand in for peer review. I just checked his pubs list and nowhere is his work at the creation institute (or any thesis or theory or hypothesis of his that would be associated) cited as a publication in any peer reviewed journal. Just creationist circlejerks.
http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

You are gonna be waiting a very long time to find any of his starlight thesis in a peer reviewed journal. The reason is simply that his hypothesis is not only laughable but it is easily shown to be false.

(February 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm)chipan Wrote: I did not ignore it I read it but simply did not respond

(February 25, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Phil Wrote:

(February 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm)chipan Wrote: I did not ignore it I read it but simply did not respond

No, you ignored it since it easily shows Humphreys "curvature" to be false or you wouldn't be insisting Humphreys thesis is correct nor would you still be calling it a theory.