- #36
bogie
- 33
- 0
I was acknowledging the fact that to consider the idea of our expanding universe having a "before or beyond" was against the mainstream. I know the mention of a greater universe is the stimulus for the mainstream to defend the position that, "we cannot know and therefore it is speculation". I thought you agreed with that is all I was saying.Nereid said:I've read this twice now, and must say that I don't know what it means - could you clarify please?
I guess that is your view and you must be pretty certain that it is the prevailing view. Otherwise you wouldn't confront a simple discussion with quotes about what the purpose of physicsforums is and what the impact of speculation can do to the education of visitors here.I thought I did ... unless you have something to replace, or extend, GR (or unless you have a much better handle on "DE"), all you've got is empty rhetoric, haven't you?
Exactly.I mean, of course "the existence of a greater universe might simplify the explanation of dark energy" ... but then it might not ...Not me ...
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional scientific discussion."unless they've changed, discussion of overly speculative ideas is explicitly ruled out in PF's rules ...
OK, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" (my bold):
Fine, are you saying that the current professional scientific discussion of dark energy is not going on right now? If it is not will you please explain all of the recent articles, posts, press, and yes even what actually looks like "discussion" about dark energy as a cause of the accelerating expansion?
Maybe you are saying that I can't participate yet? How do I know when I can?
Last edited by a moderator: