[guest39538]

Science - space is expanding

Anti/objective science - No its not

[Bored chemist]

Science - space is expanding

Anti/objective science - No its not

OK, now let's look at what I actually asked for.

Show me a single deduction made from your ideas which can actually be shown to match the real world, where the conventional view does not.
But, for preference do it in another thread. This one's getting cluttered.

Now, in this case the conventional view is that space is expanding.
There are a couple of bits of evidence for this-
The CMB which is a near perfect match to the blackbody radiation spectrum.
The observation of Doppler shifted spectral lines in distant stars with bigger shifts for more distant ones and there's the oldest bit (albeit that it's rather equivocal.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
which shows that  either the universe has a "start date" or that it's finite in extent or that there's somethign really odd about our (local) bit of the universe.


Whereas you have a bald assertion.
Lets see how you show that your claim fits the data better than the conventional view.
You will need to include the maths.
Have fun.

[guest39538]

Science - space is expanding

Anti/objective science - No its not

OK, now let's look at what I actually asked for.

Show me a single deduction made from your ideas which can actually be shown to match the real world, where the conventional view does not.
But, for preference do it in another thread. This one's getting cluttered.

Now, in this case the conventional view is that space is expanding.
There are a couple of bits of evidence for this-
The CMB which is a near perfect match to the blackbody radiation spectrum.
The observation of Doppler shifted spectral lines in distant stars with bigger shifts for more distant ones and there's the oldest bit (albeit that it's rather equivocal.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
which shows that  either the universe has a "start date" or that it's finite in extent or that there's somethign really odd about our (local) bit of the universe.


Whereas you have a bald assertion.
Lets see how you show that your claim fits the data better than the conventional view.
You will need to include the maths.
Have fun.

No maths needed, this is a simple semantic error.   The correct semantics is space-time is expanding , space-time being the overlay of space.   XYZt being a coordinate system we use and also the field 'ether'' of space.

[Bored chemist]

Two problems. Even in 4D space-time, space is expanding.
Secondly the ether has been shown not to exist.
Relying on something made up as your "explanation" is a fail.

[guest39538]

Two problems. Even in 4D space-time, space is expanding.
Secondly the ether has been shown not to exist.
Relying on something made up as your "explanation" is a fail.

Firstly you are not listening like normal.  Secondly , space-time is expanding not the space. 

Thirdly , if space-time is not also the ''ether'' , then what on earth do you suppose satellite carrier signals traverse through ?

Stop being absurd and think for once before you comment.

The space outside of our ''balloon'' ends up inside our space time dimension with inflation.

[guest39538]

space time.jpg (27.33 kB . 535x503 - viewed 3174 times)

[Bored chemist]

That picture is just some trash you made up. It isn't evidence of anything much except, perhaps that you think the expansion of the universe is the same as the expansion of the visible universe.

Firstly you are not listening like normal. 

I'm listening well enough to quote you.
I have repeatedly asked you to try to write clearly, but you seem unable.

Secondly , space-time is expanding not the space. 

The spatial component is clearly expanding.

if space-time is not also the ''ether'' , then what on earth do you suppose satellite carrier signals traverse through ?

The Ether was a made up elastic fluid.- it has properties like drag
It doesn't exist.
Space does exist (or spacetime if you like it better).
Light travels through spacetime.

Stop being absurd and think for once before you comment.

Said the man who recently said "I am space "

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73406.msg543310#msg543310

[guest39538]

Said the man who recently said "I am space "

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73406.msg543310#msg543310

Yes light does travel through the pre-existing space-time field ''ether''.  Quite clearly you are again ignoring spacial fields in search of an ''ether''. Completely ignoring the significance of the diagram , maybe another diagram will help your confusion.


demo.jpg (38.09 kB . 535x503 - viewed 3180 times)

[Bored chemist]

Quite clearly you are again ignoring spacial fields in search of an ''ether''.

I'm not in search of an ether.
I know it's not there.
Your new diagram has nicer colours than the last one.
It's still meaningless.

[guest39538]

I'm not in search of an ether.
I know it's not there.

You mean you accept there  is no  ether but have never done your own investigations?

[Bored chemist]

I'm not in search of an ether.
I know it's not there.

You mean you accept there  is no  ether but have never done your own investigations?

Actually, I have built a Michelson interferometer- it worked as expected.

Have you?

[guest39538]

I'm not in search of an ether.
I know it's not there.

You mean you accept there  is no  ether but have never done your own investigations?

Actually, I have built a Michelson interferometer- it worked as expected.

Have you?

Of course not because the ''ether'' I suggest is already provable to be there by sending a carrier wave through it . It is an electrical there.

P.s stop replying so I can leave forum