Personally I think people get way too upset by analogies.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this new understanding for infinite universe. ...
First you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite, or finite but unbounded":current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Now you claim that the Universe has no edge:There is no edge to the Universe...
Yep. Dave Lev proved my point - he doesn't even know the science he claims is wrong!You have just proved that you can't even backup your own message.
Why do you suddenly contradicts yourself?
What was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is either infinite or finite but unbounded?current thinking is that it has no edge. In short, it's either infinite, or finite but unbounded.Could it be that based on your personal approach - the real meaning of what you say is the opposite of what you say?
So, what was your intention when you have stated that the Universe is "either infinite or finite but unbounded"?
How a Universe can be finite but unbounded or unlimited?If you had done your homework, you would know this.
But you didn't even bother to find out what the current model of the universe is before claiming to have proved that it is wrong.
Let's assume that we are located near the edge of the Universe. What should we see?
Don't you agree that we would clearly see that in one side the sky is full with galaxies while in the other it is almost empty?
I would also just note that the paper had to pass peer review to be published. I would think qualified reviewers would have caught any numerology aspects.
... that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. ...
Why no comment about this:Let me tell you this: if the particles are really points, then the only way to attach properties to them is in how their field behaves as the radius (r) tends to zero. Since both gravity and electric field go as 1/(r^2) this is out of the question (the QED vacuum may confuse the two for each other).
"Encode" sounds like a word used to denote programming.
How do you translate: "They simply have properties." into mathematical language?
Our scientists are using this force/energy to boost their space ship for free.
So they are using the energy in the gravity force to accelerate their space ship in the direction of the moon, the Sun or any other direction.
All of that comes for free.
The gravity force that boosts the space ship adds a severe kinetic energy to that space ship.
So, do you agree that by using the Erath' gravity force, the space ship gets new kinetic energy for free.