Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 13:34:11
I have posted here so I can openly discuss.
I will start firstly with space-time
How many of you know that space-time is not a physical thing?
The curvature of space is not a real physical thing?
Einstein does not try to explain gravity?
Einstein explains how to make a body orbit
I presume you are on the ground at the moment, that needs no curvature but needs the linear force of gravity?
Thus proving gravity is absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary curvature of space.
Your move.......Check mate in one I believe, you have no move or excuses for the curved space lie.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 13:44:40
Your move ..... check mate again I believe.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 13:48:57
You are displacing the points not the space
Check mate.
Post by: jeffreyH on 14/04/2018 14:01:23
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:04:07
Knight to king 4. Check mate.You have no move Jeffrey, I am not making it up am I, it is facts that obviously show the wrongs.
Start with space expanding, do you really think two points of space that are adjoined could stretch ?
That is what you are saying by space is expanding.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:06:34
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:15:17
Things move and age relative to space. 0
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:18:42
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:23:48
Things need a space to exist in , events need a space to happen in, so logically space precedes any event and existence.
Space logically must also supersede any ''god''. A ''god'' or any entity would need a space to exist in.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:27:15
Science?
Religion?
Politics?
Trolls?
You will not win this game of chess.
Post by: jeffreyH on 14/04/2018 14:34:05
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 14:39:30
conceit.I would not say conceit, more annoyed that I do not seem to be getting anywhere when on a lot of things I am obviously right.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 19:21:35
Please show me where my logic is wrong, I would love to be proved wrong then I can give up.
Post by: Colin2B on 14/04/2018 19:31:20
It could be most people don’t care what you do or do not believe.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 19:45:17
Your logic is wrong if you assume No challengers = An outright victoryPeople should care about the truth. There is no challengers because I am simply correct.
It could be most people don’t care what you do or do not believe.
If you in some way think the logic is flawed , then please explain Colin, where it is flawed?
How about I and you get into a serious discussion and start with space is expanding?
Let us define x which is two adjoining points A and B . <AB>
Now if A and B were to expand , <A.....B>
Quite clearly there is space between the two points.
If we was to consider this space, we know the space is not stretched space, we know it is not new space, we know we have created a length of space by shifting the points.
If we was to contract the points <...AB...>
The space remains outside of the points.
Quite clearly space cannot expand.
Added - Field density can expand proportional to the magnitude of source.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 19:52:51
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 22:04:13
Please show me where my logic is wrong, I would love to be proved wrong then I can give up.
When did you adopt this refreshing new policy?
Post by: Colin2B on 14/04/2018 22:54:03
People should care about the truth.I care about the truth, which is why I don’t care what you say.
There is no challengers because I am simply correct.The fact that I am not going to engage shows your logic is flawed.
If you in some way think the logic is flawed , then please explain Colin, where it is flawed?
End of.
Bye
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 23:05:14
Hilarious, not even a counter argument of any description what so ever.People should care about the truth.I care about the truth, which is why I don’t care what you say.There is no challengers because I am simply correct.The fact that I am not going to engage shows your logic is flawed.
If you in some way think the logic is flawed , then please explain Colin, where it is flawed?
End of.
Bye
Ok, you say it is flawed, then you should be able to provide the reasons it is flawed?
No doubt you cannot that is why you state end of, because you know you can't. End of, I have proven science wrong yet again and again. You ignore the truth is the facts and play make believe.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 23:08:57
Is that a counter argument or to change the discussion ?Please show me where my logic is wrong, I would love to be proved wrong then I can give up.
When did you adopt this refreshing new policy?
Try again
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 23:19:06
Post by: alancalverd on 15/04/2018 00:41:23
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2018 09:35:21
No, it's just me asking when you decided to adopt a a policy of giving up when proven wrong.Is that a counter argument or to change the discussion ?Please show me where my logic is wrong, I would love to be proved wrong then I can give up.
When did you adopt this refreshing new policy?
Try again
You certainly haven't always done that in the past, indeed, you have usually doubled down repeatedly on your absurd wrongness.
It's a question; perhaps you are able to answer it... perhaps not.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/04/2018 13:38:42
Pseudoscience, logorrhea and a childish rant discredit their author without the need fo third-party intervention. Sound and fury can be entertaining on a stage, but this garbage is just boring.So a bit of name calling and insults is your only answer you can give?
Obviously none of you have any real answers do you?
Obviously I crushed all the opposition.
Is this the point I now get banned because I will not conform to your subjective brainwashing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2018 13:43:40
If you were "obviously right" then you would be getting somewhere.conceit.I would not say conceit, more annoyed that I do not seem to be getting anywhere when on a lot of things I am obviously right.
You are not, because you are not.
.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/04/2018 14:31:43
No, I am right , but for some reason I am being blocked from getting anywhere, scientists really are fearing there jobs will be lost.If you were "obviously right" then you would be getting somewhere.conceit.I would not say conceit, more annoyed that I do not seem to be getting anywhere when on a lot of things I am obviously right.
You are not, because you are not.
.
I know I am right, no if's or buts, that is why nobody can answer. They are all stunned, gob smacked, I know they are.
I know because I know they are not stupid, they know who they are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2018 14:45:40
scientists really are fearing there jobs will be lost.All over the world, every day, scientists are working towards falsifying the current ideas. That's how science makes progress. We test ideas and throw out the ones that don't work.
Why would scientists fear your ideas, even if there were not nonsense?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/04/2018 21:10:49
My ideas falsify science and do work.scientists really are fearing there jobs will be lost.All over the world, every day, scientists are working towards falsifying the current ideas. That's how science makes progress. We test ideas and throw out the ones that don't work.
Why would scientists fear your ideas, even if there were not nonsense?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/04/2018 21:35:38
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), because gravitational attraction binds matter together strongly enough that metric expansion cannot be observed at this time, on a smaller scale. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate.
According to measurements, the universe's expansion rate was decelerating until about 5 billion years ago due to the gravitational attraction of the matter content of the universe, after which time the expansion began accelerating. The source of this acceleration is currently unknown.
While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 12:36:46
dr1.jpg (50.27 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4234 times)The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it. I and my mind will be lost for all time.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 12:52:55
>E = >r
Thank me later.
Q.F.P
Post by: PmbPhy on 16/04/2018 15:29:17
The metric expansion is caused by Quantum field density radial increase.Thank you for the pseudoscience as one more example that you don't know what you're talking about. Science isn't merely about making a claim and the world admiring you for it. Its about supplying solid adequate reasons and then providing predictions from the theory which have never been made before. All see from you is speculation, which anybody can do. E.g. "God is pulling on the fabric of spacetime and that's the reason for the expansion of the universe." There ya go. Now prove me wrong. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. No, wait!!! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! :D
The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it. I and my mind will be lost for all time.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 16:46:24
That suppose to be an attempt to discredit what I am saying?The metric expansion is caused by Quantum field density radial increase.Thank you for the pseudoscience as one more example that you don't know what you're talking about. Science isn't merely about making a claim and the world admiring you for it. Its about supplying solid adequate reasons and then providing predictions from the theory which have never been made before. All see from you is speculation, which anybody can do. E.g. "God is pulling on the fabric of spacetime and that's the reason for the expansion of the universe." There ya go. Now prove me wrong. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. No, wait!!! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! :D
The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it. I and my mind will be lost for all time.
I think not!
Answer me a question,
In magnetism,
Two likewise magnetic poles will retain a radius apart, if any of the magnets is increased in size and strength, the radius apart will be greater?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 16:55:12
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 17:06:08
Space expanding, more lies, two adjoined points of space can not be displaced to leave space between the points.
You are displacing the points not the space
Check mate.
Hasn't it already been proven that space is expanding? Please do give me a theory of events leading up to today that in you're mind proves that space expansion is a lie! For a start if it wasn't expanding then why is their distance between objects, why are stars etc so far from each other. Basically what you are saying is lies, without expansion we would literally not be able to exist.
Checkmate MrBox
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 17:11:47
I have told science for ages that their semantics sucks, read what Wiki saysSpace expanding, more lies, two adjoined points of space can not be displaced to leave space between the points.
You are displacing the points not the space
Check mate.
Hasn't it already been proven that space is expanding? Please do give me a theory of events leading up to today that in you're mind proves that space expansion is a lie! For a start if it wasn't expanding then why is their distance between objects, why are stars etc so far from each other. Basically what you are saying is lies, without expansion we would literally not be able to exist.
.[3] Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what has been described by some as "careless" choices of wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion of space and the misconceptions to which such descriptions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion within education and communication of scientific concepts.[4][5][6][7]
They accept the wording and semantics sucks, I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening and point sources are moving apart. The big bang is wrong and right. Space pre-existed before the big bang. This space is the nothing before the big bang, it is made of nothing. Light and dark, time, matter, does not exist before the big bang.
ok?
p.s space as never been proved to be expanding.
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 17:22:10
Quote
I have told science for ages that their semantics sucks, read what Wiki says
.[3] Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what has been described by some as "careless" choices of wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion of space and the misconceptions to which such descriptions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion within education and communication of scientific concepts.[4][5][6][7]
They accept the wording and semantics sucks, I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening and point sources are moving apart. The big bang is wrong and right. Space pre-existed before the big bang. This space is the nothing before the big bang, it is made of nothing. Light and dark, time, matter, does not exist before the big bang.
ok?
Firstly if you are sourcing information from Wikipedia it can be edited by just about everyone and for this reason, it isn't always to be trusted.
Secondly, the only thing you may have right here is that the space that the universe could expand in already existed, also I don't believe in field density, purely cause it can be attributed to things such as soil and sand. And as such, it wouldn't have a use in the expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding, therefore, it is becoming less dense. If the universe was to contract then it would become denser and as such field density would have a bearing here.
Checkmate again MrBox
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 17:24:40
Quote
p.s space as never been proved to be expanding.
Is that so?
Quote
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 17:30:52
That is no where near check mate, you would contradict ''Secondly, the only thing you may have right here is that the space that the universe could expand in already existed, ''I have told science for ages that their semantics sucks, read what Wiki saysSpace expanding, more lies, two adjoined points of space can not be displaced to leave space between the points.
You are displacing the points not the space
Check mate.
Hasn't it already been proven that space is expanding? Please do give me a theory of events leading up to today that in you're mind proves that space expansion is a lie! For a start if it wasn't expanding then why is their distance between objects, why are stars etc so far from each other. Basically what you are saying is lies, without expansion we would literally not be able to exist.
.[3] Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what has been described by some as "careless" choices of wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion of space and the misconceptions to which such descriptions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion within education and communication of scientific concepts.[4][5][6][7]
They accept the wording and semantics sucks, I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening and point sources are moving apart. The big bang is wrong and right. Space pre-existed before the big bang. This space is the nothing before the big bang, it is made of nothing. Light and dark, time, matter, does not exist before the big bang.
ok?
Firstly if you are sourcing information from Wikipedia it can be edited by just about everyone and for this reason, it isn't always to be trusted.
Secondly, the only thing you may have right here is that the space that the universe could expand in already existed, also I don't believe in field density, purely cause it can be attributed to things such as soil and sand. And as such, it wouldn't have a use in the expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding, therefore, it is becoming less dense. If the universe was to contract then it would become denser and as such field density would have a bearing here.
Checkmate again MrBox
Are you for a serious discussion?
In the begging there was nothing,
1) 0 dimensions
2) An unknown volume of geometrical points
How do you suppose we could expand either when there is nothing to expand?
What do you propose number 1 could expand into? 0 would need pre-existing space to expand into. Logically accurate
What do you propose number 2 is made of? what do you suppose could expand?
I propose to you, you could only possibly expand an overlay. To expand points of nothing is absurd.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 17:32:31
Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.Quotep.s space as never been proved to be expanding.
Is that so?QuoteThe American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Visible light is independent of space.
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 17:42:11
Quote
That is no where near check mate, you would contradict ''Secondly, the only thing you may have right here is that the space that the universe could expand in already existed, ''
Are you for a serious discussion?
In the begging there was nothing,
1) 0 dimensions
2) A volume of geometrical points
How do you suppose we could expand either when there is nothing to expand?
What do you propose number 1 could expand into? 0 would need pre-existing space to expand into. Logically accurate
What do you propose number 2 is made of? what do you suppose could expand?
I propose to you, you could only possibly expand an overlay. To expand points of nothing is absurd.
There was something to expand though if you look at this with a slight amount of logic then how could you explain the big bang being an explosion from nothing? There was always something that came first, nothing is nothing and thus with nothing, you can't make something. For example without something we wouldn't be here. That something just happened to be the right molecular makeup to produce what is here today, if nothing came first then nothing would exist. So yeah space has always existed in one form or another and it is this space that the universe is expanding into. Every single thing in the universe is born from something that came before it, the stars aren't just born from nothing, nor are the planets.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 18:17:27
There was something to expand though if you look at this with a slight amount of logic then how could you explain the big bang being an explosion from nothing?
Something can manifest from nothing in the form of electrostatic charge.
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 18:23:26
There was something to expand though if you look at this with a slight amount of logic then how could you explain the big bang being an explosion from nothing?
Something can manifest from nothing in the form of electrostatic charge.
Nope, an electrostatic charge is where an insulator doesn't let the charge flow through it, therefore, it is just an insulator and that has to have something working on it by means of friction. So no electrostatic charge doesn't come from nothing.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 18:27:16
Maybe I should of said static, a mono-pole static , but I am trying not to give it all away.
There was something to expand though if you look at this with a slight amount of logic then how could you explain the big bang being an explosion from nothing?
Something can manifest from nothing in the form of electrostatic charge.
Nope, an electrostatic charge is where an insulator doesn't let the charge flow through it, therefore, it is just an insulator and that has to have something working on it by means of friction. So no electrostatic charge doesn't come from nothing.
Post by: atbsphotography on 16/04/2018 18:40:18
Quote
Maybe I should of said static, a mono-pole static , but I am trying not to give it all away.
Static is still the same thing, an insulator has static electricity hence the name electrostatic. Also, researching mono-poles brings me to the same conclusion, where it still needs a particle to charge, meaning it still has to have something and with nothing, it just wouldn't work. If there is nothing then electricity wouldn't exist, therefore no static, nothing. Sorry to disappoint you Mr Box
Post by: PmbPhy on 16/04/2018 19:12:45
Quote from: Thebox
Thank you for the pseudoscience as one more example that you don't know what you're talking about. Science isn't merely about making a claim and the world admiring you for it. Its about supplying solid adequate reasons and then providing predictions from the theory which have never been made before. All see from you is speculation, which anybody can do. E.g. "God is pulling on the fabric of spacetime and that's the reason for the expansion of the universe." There ya go. Now prove me wrong. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. No, wait!!! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! :D
That suppose to be an attempt to discredit what I am saying?
[/quote]
A typical example of a pseudoscientist refusing to directly a simple question. Its an example which demonstrates how non-scientific as well as illogical your claim is.
Since you failed to meet the illustrious triple dog dare you must now lick a ice cold post. Lol!
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:23:59
You as per most ignore direct questions, I asked you a question about magnetic force, but replied with a subjective answer ''attacking'' the messenger. If your logic is so good, you will have no trouble answering my question.Quote from: TheboxQuoteThank you for the pseudoscience as one more example that you don't know what you're talking about. Science isn't merely about making a claim and the world admiring you for it. Its about supplying solid adequate reasons and then providing predictions from the theory which have never been made before. All see from you is speculation, which anybody can do. E.g. "God is pulling on the fabric of spacetime and that's the reason for the expansion of the universe." There ya go. Now prove me wrong. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya. No, wait!!! I TRIPLE dog dare ya! :DA typical example of a pseudoscientist refusing to directly a simple question. Its an example which demonstrates how non-scientific as well as illogical your claim is.
That suppose to be an attempt to discredit what I am saying?
Since you failed to meet the illustrious triple dog dare you must now lick a ice cold post. Lol!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:24:40
My ideas falsify science and do work.If your ideas showed that what scientists currently believe is wrong then you have shown that science does work.
If, on the other hand (as is supported by the evidence) you have not shown that the current beliefs are wrong then you have not shown that science doesn't work.
Please could you clarify which wrong you are?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:26:01
but I am trying not to give it all away.You have nothing to give, and we all now it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:28:10
Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.OK, the light that reaches us is not the same colour that it left the distant body.
The only thing it has passed through in between is space.
So, what changed the wavelength if it is "nothing to do with space"?
Your position doesn't make sense to anyone who actually understands the physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:30:54
As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse.Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.OK, the light that reaches us is not the same colour that it left the distant body.
The only thing it has passed through in between is space.
So, what changed the wavelength if it is "nothing to do with space"?
Your position doesn't make sense to anyone who actually understands the physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:31:15
I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
ok?
You were unable to say what "field density " is.
Had you forgotten?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:32:47
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:33:40
I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
ok?
You were unable to say what "field density " is.
Had you forgotten?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:35:09
That doesn't work as an explanation.As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse.Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.OK, the light that reaches us is not the same colour that it left the distant body.
The only thing it has passed through in between is space.
So, what changed the wavelength if it is "nothing to do with space"?
Your position doesn't make sense to anyone who actually understands the physics.
Light from a light bulb spreads out a lot, but the stuff from a distant star is almost perfectly parallel.
So it has not, in fact, spread out in the x or y directions.
If it had, it would have missed us.
Obviously other light does go off to the sides of us (and in every other direction out from the star) but we don't see that light- it goes somewhere else.
Would you like to try again, but with a bit more thought, rather than utter nonsense, this time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:35:36
nobody will give me a book offer.You got that bit right.
All the famous scientists with lots of money from books started off by publishing all their ideas.
So your "business model" makes as little sense as your "physics" models.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:37:51
I have my friends here, I will answer you in a bit when they have gone and I concentrate more.That doesn't work as an explanation.As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse.Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.OK, the light that reaches us is not the same colour that it left the distant body.
The only thing it has passed through in between is space.
So, what changed the wavelength if it is "nothing to do with space"?
Your position doesn't make sense to anyone who actually understands the physics.
Light from a light bulb spreads out a lot, but the stuff from a distant star is almost perfectly parallel.
So it has not, in fact, spread out in the x or y directions.
If it had, it would have missed us.
Obviously other light does go off to the sides of us (and in every other direction out from the star) but we don't see that light- it goes somewhere else.
Would you like to try again, but with a bit more thought, rather than utter nonsense, this time?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:43:44
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 19:46:01
I drew it you before i go off , the red -shift is our end not the object end,That scribble offers no explanation of why the shift happens- it just repeats your unevinced claim.
Do you even science?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:52:29
Maybe I should of said static, a mono-pole static , but I am trying not to give it all away.
There was something to expand though if you look at this with a slight amount of logic then how could you explain the big bang being an explosion from nothing?
Something can manifest from nothing in the form of electrostatic charge.
Nope, an electrostatic charge is where an insulator doesn't let the charge flow through it, therefore, it is just an insulator and that has to have something working on it by means of friction. So no electrostatic charge doesn't come from nothing.
Static is still the same thing, an insulator has static electricity hence the name electrostatic. Also, researching mono-poles brings me to the same conclusion, where it still needs a particle to charge, meaning it still has to have something and with nothing, it just wouldn't work. If there is nothing then electricity wouldn't exist, therefore no static, nothing. Sorry to disappoint you Mr Box
Prove static could not build up in a single point of a void?
You can't because the void is already occupied.
My idea works better than no idea, such as before the big bang there was nothing.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:54:58
Jeepers you are slow sometimes, the light that reaches you is so weak, the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.I drew it you before i go off , the red -shift is our end not the object end,That scribble offers no explanation of why the shift happens- it just repeats your unevinced claim.
Do you even science?
It is not stretching , it is compressing.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 19:58:49
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 20:02:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 20:20:09
the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.Practically all the equipment we use for observing the wavelength of light involves passing it through lenses.
You must be really slow to not recognise that, if the lenses were responsible, we would see the effect on everything, not just very distant objects.
You may also be too ill-informed to know that distant stars are not the only very weak light sources we look at, and the effect isn't found in other cases- only distant stars and such.
Your diagrams still mean nothing.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 20:48:49
Quite clearly you never understood Einstein, it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.the lens of the telescopes permeability makes the light red-shift. You are observing the red shift of the light passing through the lens.Practically all the equipment we use for observing the wavelength of light involves passing it through lenses.
You must be really slow to not recognise that, if the lenses were responsible, we would see the effect on everything, not just very distant objects.
You may also be too ill-informed to know that distant stars are not the only very weak light sources we look at, and the effect isn't found in other cases- only distant stars and such.
Your diagrams still mean nothing.
Consider the Doppler affect, when an object is moving away from a light source the light red-shifts. So what happens if a telescope is moving away from the light source while viewing the light source?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 20:59:14
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 21:16:44
Post by: The Spoon on 16/04/2018 22:47:13
What? For a colouring in book?I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
ok?
You were unable to say what "field density " is.
Had you forgotten?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 23:41:06
Lame challenge, come back when you get funny hair , a big plastic red nose and some big shoes.What? For a colouring in book?I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.I can correct this and they ignore this. Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
ok?
You were unable to say what "field density " is.
Had you forgotten?
Post by: PmbPhy on 17/04/2018 01:10:35
You as per most ignore direct questions, I asked you a question about magnetic force, but replied with a subjective answer ''attacking'' the messenger. If your logic is so good, you will have no trouble answering my question.
[/quote]
All quite wrong. I didn't attack you and everyone here, except you who feels persecuted, knows that. I read the first post and called you on it. I don't care what else you said nor do I read 99% of what you post. You're in my ignore list. I was merely curios about your challenge to a rumble. Then you turned to insults like in this post so I'm ignoring you again. Perhaps for another month or year.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/04/2018 13:35:49
quote author=Thebox]All quite wrong. I didn't attack you and everyone here, except you who feels persecuted, knows that. I read the first post and called you on it. I don't care what else you said nor do I read 99% of what you post. You're in my ignore list. I was merely curios about your challenge to a rumble. Then you turned to insults like in this post so I'm ignoring you again. Perhaps for another month or year.
You as per most ignore direct questions, I asked you a question about magnetic force, but replied with a subjective answer ''attacking'' the messenger. If your logic is so good, you will have no trouble answering my question.
[/quote]
lame, I have not insulted you, you stick to defended your scientism of lies and ignoring the real science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2018 19:29:00
Quite clearly you never understood Einstein, it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.It doesn't matter if I understand it or not.
I never said anything that relies in any way on determining which observer is moving.
So, it's clear that you are posting nonsense.
So what happens if a telescope is moving away from the light source while viewing the light source?It gets further from the light source.
Did you think you had made some sort of point?
If someone was looking through the telescope they would see a reed shifted source.
And if the source was bi or bright enough they would see exactly the same red shift without the telescope.
The telescope does not significantly change the colour of the light passing through it. They go to a lot of trouble to avoid that.
redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased decreased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.Which one do you mean
(I know the editor has lost the strike-through, but that's not the point)
Post by: Kryptid on 17/04/2018 21:23:15
I know that might sound crazy, but hear me out. He has specifically asked to be banned in the past when his threads were locked. He framed it in such a way that the lock was due to a persecution of his ideas and not a result of his behavior. Take note how he said in this very thread, "Is this the point I now get banned because I will not conform to your subjective brainwashing?" If he was banned, then he would become the victim. He would be a "martyr" for his ideas. It would be "proof" that his brilliant insight is being suppressed. That would only confirm just how right he was all along. Kind of a "You couldn't prove me wrong, so you had to silence me" sort of thing.
He seems to think that scientists are not out to make new discoveries, but are instead preoccupied with protecting the status quo from dangerous and disruptive "truths" (a mindset that isn't exactly rare on this board. Yaniv and tkadm30 come to mind as well). Maybe he is even hoping to use this hypothetical ban as a point of discussion in the book he wants to write.
Now, I may be way off the mark, but that's just how it seems to me based on his past (and current) behavior.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2018 21:30:08
Perhaps we should help him with his book in that way.
Post by: Colin2B on 17/04/2018 21:57:20
The other thing he craves is attention. Anything, no matter how outlandish to pull in the suckers.
If he gets banned it won’t be for his theories.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 00:12:00
I have a hypothesis of my own. I think it's quite possible that debating the merits of his ideas was only a secondary reason for Thebox creating this thread. He already has multiple threads about those in the "New Theories" section, so he could have just gone back and posted in one of those. He also seems just as tired of debating it as the rest of us are (based on his quote of "The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.") It may be that his main purpose for creating this thread was an attempt to get himself banned.I have got to admit you people are interesting from a psychological viewpoint. Why is it , every time you have no answer to something, you gang up like a bunch of school children and start crying and blaming the poster for your lack of interest in discussing the topic?
I know that might sound crazy, but hear me out. He has specifically asked to be banned in the past when his threads were locked. He framed it in such a way that the lock was due to a persecution of his ideas and not a result of his behavior. Take note how he said in this very thread, "Is this the point I now get banned because I will not conform to your subjective brainwashing?" If he was banned, then he would become the victim. He would be a "martyr" for his ideas. It would be "proof" that his brilliant insight is being suppressed. That would only confirm just how right he was all along. Kind of a "You couldn't prove me wrong, so you had to silence me" sort of thing.
He seems to think that scientists are not out to make new discoveries, but are instead preoccupied with protecting the status quo from dangerous and disruptive "truths" (a mindset that isn't exactly rare on this board. Yaniv and tkadm30 come to mind as well). Maybe he is even hoping to use this hypothetical ban as a point of discussion in the book he wants to write.
Now, I may be way off the mark, but that's just how it seems to me based on his past (and current) behavior.
Your cognitive dissonance is astounding and your defence of your scientism is rather boring the world now, hardly anybody believes such rubbish anymore .
Do you think your stories will continue to work for you when people can and are seeing right through the subjectivity you teach that is not even rational?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 01:35:32
Post by: atbsphotography on 18/04/2018 07:55:12
Quote
Prove static could not build up in a single point of a void?
You can't because the void is already occupied.
My idea works better than no idea, such as before the big bang there was nothing.
Does it though a void is empty of anything, hence it is called a void.
Quote
noun
noun: void; plural noun: voids
1.
a completely empty space.
"the black void of space"
If a void is occupied then it isn't a void because something is occupying that space. Therefore static can't build up in a void, static has to have something that creates it using friction, in a void, there is nothing that can create the static.
The general consensus is your idea doesn't work better than anything cause there is nothing for it to work on.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 08:22:03
A void is a void until something happens to make it not a void, i.e a spark in the ''dark''.
If a void is occupied then it isn't a void because something is occupying that space. Therefore static can't build up in a void, static has to have something that creates it using friction, in a void, there is nothing that can create the static.
The general consensus is your idea doesn't work better than anything cause there is nothing for it to work on.
Well I guess I will just have to proclaim that science is wrong and religion is right because science cannot give me an answer then .
Post by: Colin2B on 18/04/2018 08:34:33
These long quotes in the last few posts use up a lot of bandwidth and make the threads hard to follow. Please edit your quotes to the specific point you are answering.
Thank you
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 09:05:51
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 09:15:50
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 09:27:46
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 09:39:34
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 09:43:15
Post by: atbsphotography on 18/04/2018 14:45:07
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 15:23:02
What does 0 point pressure do though is the main question? If there is no given point for pressure to be exerted upon then there is no pressure? At least that is what I learnt in school whenever I turned up.All points are given points, all points are infinitely dense and nothing at the same time.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 19:10:41
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 19:23:43
What does 0 point pressure do though is the main question?Manifests Alpha and Beta waves.
Post by: atbsphotography on 18/04/2018 19:27:55
For something to happen, there can be nothing that prevents it from happening, if we begin with nothing, there is nothing to prevent something happening. Nothing only has one way to go in becoming something.
But with nothing then how can something happen? You referenced before a spark in the dark, how could that be a possibility if there is nothing to create that spark?
My personal feeling is we live in a timeframe that is much like a circle, there isn't a start nor is there an end. Everything in between leads back to its creator. Meaning the big bang was preceded by another universe, just the force of the energy from the big bang altered the landscape in a way where it has to start again. If you look at the first law of thermodynamics then matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed.
Quote
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to the mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system.
If this is indeed the case then it would make sense for the universe to be occupying this hypothetical circular timeframe and as such, there is no beginning or end to the universe, just another day brings us closer to another big bang and thus the start of another period in that cycle.
If this is right then hypothetically it could bring about the potential for multiple parts of the universe to be remnants of the one before it. Though of course, I might be wrong, and I welcome the criticism from people who know more than I do.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/04/2018 19:35:54
But with nothing then how can something happen? You referenced before a spark in the dark, how could that be a possibility if there is nothing to create that spark?Understand In defining space as the ambiguity word of God, ZpP is God's miracle that manifests Alpha and Beta waves that are an infinitesimal small magnitude of energy at any random point of an infinite volume of geometrical points. The mono-pole waves disperse at c.
Quote
My personal feeling is we live in a timeframe that is much like a circle, there isn't a start nor is there an end. Everything in between leads back to its creator. Meaning the big bang was preceded by another universe, just the force of the energy from the big bang altered the landscape in a way where it has to start again. If you look at the first law of thermodynamics then matter/energy can't be created nor destroyed.
Not far off, nothing do with a time frame though or circles. Imagine an infinite line that was nothing but emptiness, at the start of the line was a big bang, that spreads out and makes a universe, now further up the line because it infinite, it is still empty , so we have to make another big bang . Further up the line it is empty , so again ...and so.
Now because the line is infinite, it will take an infinite amount of time to ''fill'' the line.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2018 20:07:50
Why is it , every time you have no answer to something, you gang up like a bunch of school childrenIt's not "ganging up".
We all say the same sort of things because all of us are right and we tend to cite the same sort of evidence to prove it.
You, on the other hand, say different things.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2018 20:08:39
These long quotes in the last few posts use up a lot of bandwidth and make the threads hard to follow.I feel the same way about the "diagrams".
Post by: Tomassci on 31/05/2018 11:17:01
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 13:48:07
This is what Randall calls "low quality" images.Well, tell Randall, yes I was far less stoned when I created this thread :D
Confusion is an illusion ...................
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 14:02:27
Now that is hilarious ..............''you'' must me proper ''thick''.
I am not insane you stupid people , I am a stoner bwahahaha , I told this forum years ago, you think my memory is bad, try your own memories . Pfffff
Ban me now please I have had enough and people keep replying, I have to reply because I am not ignorant. I hate ignorance........
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 14:19:18
When I was young, they advertised it, it was sponsorship on football games, snooker players did it, it was the cool thing to do, you dumb ass aholes
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 15:18:25
Now ban me , I have broke your rules and give you no choice.
I am going fishing watch the sun rise and then sun set, if tomorrow comes I will count my blessings.. I do not need what I thought I needed in life......
Post by: Colin2B on 31/05/2018 15:45:18
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 15:58:40
Which rule?I am chatting chit, no science , insulting people calling them stupid , so you can ban me .
Post by: Colin2B on 31/05/2018 17:26:55
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 17:57:48
Why do you want to be banned? Why not just stop posting and let your registration lapse?Because I can't stop posting , I think my brain likes thinking too much, I want to switch off like the rest of the world and just live.
But I am compelled to post , not because I am crazy or lonely , because I can't stop myself , I have no control I am compelled to post because that is what my thoughts control me to do.
My logic will not allow illogical , I can't help it , I have to point out ''your'' errors.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 18:03:29
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2018 18:56:06
I think my brain likes thinking too much,It doesn't show.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 19:35:25
My logic has been compromised, I presently occupy multiple realities because of memes. I have insufficient information and observation to know which reality is the correct one.I think my brain likes thinking too much,It doesn't show.
So logically my option is to accept my own reality , what I can prove is real around me, unless shown otherwise.
Post by: Tomassci on 01/06/2018 07:06:57
Do you see any flashlight redding, when you are distant? If yes, pics or it didn't happen.Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.Your position doesn't make sense to anyone who actually understands the physics.
And: Do you have any mathematical proof?
Post by: Colin2B on 01/06/2018 07:40:13
Because I can't stop posting , I think my brain likes thinking too much, I want to switch off like the rest of the world and just live.Are you asking us to ban you because you are addicted to posting and it is affecting your health?
But I am compelled to post , not because I am crazy or lonely , because I can't stop myself , I have no control I am compelled to post
Strangly, I was going to put up a post asking if people can become physically addicted to forum posting, twitter, etc.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2018 12:54:22
Because I can't stop posting , I think my brain likes thinking too much, I want to switch off like the rest of the world and just live.Are you asking us to ban you because you are addicted to posting and it is affecting your health?
But I am compelled to post , not because I am crazy or lonely , because I can't stop myself , I have no control I am compelled to post
Strangly, I was going to put up a post asking if people can become physically addicted to forum posting, twitter, etc.
Hi Colin, let me explain my present mindset caused from this forum and a religious forum I am on.
We all live in a VR program, the controllers outside the program can kill us off anytime they like. In the program there is giant aliens who are coming to take over the earth. One of the Aliens wants to make me their personal sex play thing and wants to abuse me. Besides that the aliens want to eat most of us, the rest will be slaves . These Aliens live at Antarctica. Now to make the program even more dramatic why this is all going to happen, the earth is about to self explode also a huge comet is coming as well just to add to the drama.
No that is just one reality I have been memed with.
Do I believe any of it ?
I have no way of knowing , you can say don't be daft, but suppose you was covering it up and really an alien ?
So although not mentally ill, ''they'' have thrown a spanner in my works, I am a just incase man. So just in case I am on here pissing off aliens, I think I need to stop posting.
P.s In another reality the aliens are all AI robots and the alien queen wants me to become a robot and be her companion.
P.s In another scenario the aliens are peace loving and Muslim similar to humans. They are coming from afar to take some of us off the planet to safety to start again.
P.s In another scenario the aliens are nazi's
I could go on and on, my science thinking is compromised because Now my head is full of chit that I have been memed with and course physics change with different realities.
P.s If I knew , it would not bother me, I would certainly super glue my butt cheeks together though just in case. :-\
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2018 13:02:23
Strangly, I was going to put up a post asking if people can become physically addicted to forum posting, twitter, etc.As for that , people with mental boredom need an outlet.
Post by: Colin2B on 01/06/2018 16:04:02
Don’t worry about the aliens, if they’ve managed to travel this far they are ok to look after themselves.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2018 17:13:58
You haven’t really answered the question “Are you asking us to ban you because you are addicted to posting and it is affecting your health”Well no I suppose not, my mental health is quite normal, I would be lying if i said I let things affect me from forums in a real mental way.
I don't know Colin, obviously people do not really agree with me, I am not getting anywhere in life and it is not the lack of persistence of trying.
Maybe banning me will stop me wasting my time, because that is all I feel now, that I have wasted my time.
Well anyway it as took me about 6 month to get a rod and reel back, I am gone fishing tomorrow, some of the finer things in life hey....
Post by: Colin2B on 01/06/2018 18:20:29
......obviously people do not really agree with me,......Have you decided to take up serious understatements? ;)
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2018 18:25:26
Well, I suppose if I didn't take it seriously , I would just have to pretend my reality.......obviously people do not really agree with me,......Have you decided to take up serious understatements? ;)