Robo Jesus wrote:Uhm, no. The galaxy that's eight times larger than what physics says is possible,
here's a link to it ...
So which law or laws of physics does their existence demonstrate to be false? After all, you did claim that it is physically impossible.
Robo Jesus wrote:The speed of light, 299,792,458 metres per second (a finite speed set at a finite time, yet it requires infinite energy?)
For positive-rest-mass objects, yes (locally). What's the problem? If you believe there is some contradiction, as opposed to merely your private incredulity, please elaborate. STR is as internally consistent as the coordinate geometry most people learn in high school and is experimentally the most successful physical theory ever (especially since QED rests on STR). If you want to say that it's critically flawed in some fictional universe, that's quite alright, but if you want to draw such implications for actual physics, don't be surprised if your evidence if vigorously questioned.
Robo Jesus wrote:The implications that there is something beyond the universe we can see because we're observing the effects of gravity on our universe that make no sense without something beyond the observable universe, ...
The position that the universe is much larger than what we can see has been accepted in astrophysics for at more than half a century. It's also been proven in the sense that all observations fit the standard general-relativistic ΛCDM family of models (which have been around in various forms since about 1930s), the models in turn predicting that our universe is much larger than what is seen. I've no idea why you treat this as some sort of physics-busting revelation.
Robo Jesus wrote:... a link (with many many others that all say the same thing (I.E. "there has to be something else outside our universe to get the result that we're seeing")).
If that's what you think your link implies, then you've not understood the issue. The bubble proposal does not advance the "our understanding sucks" thesis at all. First, it requires some very extraordinary coincidences and completely lacks empirical support, so it's never going to pass Ockham's razor (specifically, it requires the universe to be isotropic about some point (the center) but not homogeneous (hence, the central point is unique), and us to be at almost the exact center of this universe). Second, it doesn't actually overturn any laws of physics; in fact, it's just a data fit to near and far supernovae on a completely ordinary and well-known solution of general relativity (but not the middle-range SNes, which is why it doesn't have supporting evidence).
Which doesn't even say anything of that sort, much less demonstrate it. Bell proved that quantum mechanics cannot be both causal and local back in mid-1960s; this is just one more test of that (some variation on this is reported several times a year, or its close cousin, the superluminal phase velocity of light). If you think any of it implies superluminal "signal", i.e., a transfer of information, you're simply wrong.
Robo Jesus wrote:The only part which is pure conjecture is on the possible implications that the Big Bang was created by Cosmic Strings, ... .
Assuming that alternative model is correct (and that's actually a significant supposition), what are the implications to our understanding about anything at all past a tiny fraction of a femtosecond after the Big Bang (and before some trillions of years in the future), particularly the fundamental laws of physics? Because if those implications are of the same type as the failure of a engineer of considering the ultimately quantum-mechanical nature of the steel he'll be working with, the conclusion that the engineer's understanding of bridge-building "absolutely sucks" is less than impressive. If they're more significant, explain why.
Robo Jesus wrote:Of course, that doesn't help if people don't know the details behind what was discussed, and I blindly assumed that others would instantly know what had been said and discussed. I appologize for assuming that.
I know what you've been referring to; it's one of several alternative models based on string theory or its derivatives. This is one of the statements that were not false per se but lacking the meaning or significance you've assigned it.
Robo Jesus wrote:So, let's see, all the things I talked about seem to be... FACTUAL, ...
A majority are non-factual; the rest have been distorted past the point of having any relevance.
Robo Jesus wrote:And arrogantly assuming that what we know now is all we'll ever know, or that we cannot be totally wrong about something, is an attitude that needs to be kicked in the head with steel toed boots. Repeatedly.
I'm torn between being in awe of your strawman or the irony of being lectured on arrogance by someone who either doesn't read or doesn't understand his own sources. I explicitly admitted that our knowledge is far from complete, so don't pretend otherwise--it being the only statement in your first post between us that I agreed with. On the other hand, going from that from that to "our understanding of physics absolutely sucks" involves no rational basis, an ignorance of just how well our fundamental laws do work, and, as your next post demonstrated, an ignorance of what our theories are even talking about. As far as I'm concerned,
that's the sort of arrogant attitude "that needs to be kicked in the head with steel toed boots."
Robo Jesus wrote: And btw, fuck you.:) You call me a liar in public, I'll make my retort and defence in public as well. (Don't take this too seriously, as it's not meant 100% serious). :D :P
Hence my invitation to make another thread to call me out on it if you wished (although for the record, I did not call you a liar).
Robo Jesus wrote:Bah, the problem, as I said, is we DON'T KNOW WHY IT TAKES INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO MOVE AN OBJECT WITH MASS A FINITE SPEED IN A FINITE TIMEFRAME. We don't know, let alone understand, the basis behind what causes this.
There are so many ways of answering that question that one would first need to know your criteria for what constitutes an explanation (e.g., it's trivial to keep asking 'why' no matter how many explanatory layers are given). If I were to use my own sense of what's fundamental, I would say that this is because time has a different metric signature from space, or else time would be just another spatial direction. The signature can't be zero because gravity is attractive [1], so it must have opposite sign. This in turn directly implies that spacetime is locally that of STR (it's mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise), and therefore there is a local speed limit.
Note that all of this is independent of how gravity behaves quantitatively, and also independent of the claim that the speed limit is that of light (in the sense that the speed limit can logically be something other than that of light in vacuum). There are also some loopholes: (1) the degree to which our universe can be modeled as a spacetime manifold in the first place (which is extreme, according to experiments), and (2) the fact that the speed limit is only enforced locally. But superluminal "global" velocities aren't anything new in GTR, where the very notion of relative velocity is often ambiguous except on a purely local scale.
[1] Hence mass must contribute negatively to gravitational field energy; if time signature was zero (a Galilean type of spacetime), gravitational field strength would have to be imaginary for this to come out right.
And btw, fuck you.
You call me a liar in public, I'll make my retort and defence in public as well. (Don't take this too seriously, as it's not meant 100% serious). 
). It's not that it takes an infinite amount of energy to move an object at a finite speed, it's that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to a finite speed.
