0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: TheboxSo if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon ...What??? Why? What does bursting the balloon represent physically? You can't burst space so your comment again makes no sense.Quote from: boxYou say you can't burst space, why can't you burst space? because space has no physical fabric of space, space is neither flexible or has mass.Bursting a balloon represents nothing, it is the remaining dots that represent galaxies in space with no balloon and no expanding space.Let me just clarify something, if you look into space where there is no matter and you just see the black background. you are saying this is what is expanding right?Space has no motion ,
So if you imagine a balloon and put dots on the balloon to represent objects, and then burst the balloon ...
You say you can't burst space, why can't you burst space? because space has no physical fabric of space, space is neither flexible or has mass.Bursting a balloon represents nothing, it is the remaining dots that represent galaxies in space with no balloon and no expanding space.Let me just clarify something, if you look into space where there is no matter and you just see the black background. you are saying this is what is expanding right?Space has no motion ,
I made a comment in another of your threads about the cosmic microwave background which was intended to test your understanding of the expansion of the universe. You clearly didn't get the point, so I just gave up on you at that point. However, I'll give you another go. What do you imagine is generating these microwaves that are coming in from all directions? They are consistent with there being an explosion in a highly-contracted space fabric where they would originally have been emitted as light, and that space fabric has subsequently expanded in such a way that the frequency has reduced to microwaves. The way they behave (coming at us continually from all directions) is also consistent with that model. If you accept that there was some kind of big bang but you want to have a space that's infinite from the start, you're going to have a serious problem to address - the light that was emitted from that explosion would race away from there to infinity and none of the galaxies created out of that explosion would be receiving any light or microwaves from that explosion today, and indeed they would never have received any of it at all. So, where are the microwaves that we detect coming from? You don't have an expansion to reduce their frequency, so you need to have a microwave emitter spread out of sight all round the edge of the visible universe, and if we can detect the frequency falling over time you're going to have to account for that too without relying on any expansion, and then you would have to explain why this source of microwaves should be a distant sphere centred around us. You're also going to have to find a way to explain the slight differences in intensity of the cosmic microwave background which are consistent with a lumpiness that led to the formation of galaxies - you need your monster-spherical microwave generating machine to create them in a very slightly lumpy way too. So, good luck with doing that - you may hit upon the right answer, but you should understand that you're up against an amazing coincidence in that the evidence fits beautifully with the idea of a big bang (not necessarily from an absolute singularity) with a very compact space fabric which then expanded - it's a simple, short burst of light coming out of a single explosion which ends up as a continual microwave shower through every point in the universe from all directions billions of years later. It's almost certainly too good not to be true. It may not be true though, but you're up against astronomical odds, and you need to understand that before you waste any more of your time attacking it.
The theory of everything part-5cWhat else should we consider when considering matter and the attributes of matter? It is important when considering matter not to ignore the work of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who discovered the law of conservation of mass that led to many new findings in the nineteenth century. A basic outline of this is ”that nothing is ever lost” but rather changes form. This can be experimentally shown to be true. One could imply with a certainty that an object of mass , such as a block of wood, loses it’s individual mass as an isolated system when destroyed by fire. The reminiscence of the starting mass decreasing as the wood becomes ash. Where does this mass go? It is simply to apply the term, ”up in smoke” and heat and electromagnetic radiation in the form of light. The energy released is not a destruction of the atoms, but rather the initial excitement of the atoms of the mass by the initial ignition process. These atoms becoming positive charged by the kinetics involved of the Atoms excitement causing the Atom’s to become positive ion’s.A generalization of this is that positive ion’s rise being opposed to the gravitational force leaving behind a negative residue of ash that bound the initial structure together. An ash that can be questioned for a certainty, is ash really made of atoms? What difference is there between the ash that sits on the ground and the mass that is lost?I am not sure if 5c is correct but seems possible? May be altered.
part-5b .All matter is said to be made of these tiny particles, called Atoms! So tiny has a singular Atom, they are not seen by the human eye. To clarify the extent of the smallness of these Atom's, we can imagine a pin head contains thousands of atoms.
The theory of everything – Part 1[...............]This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?
Quote from: Thebox on 26/03/2015 00:25:55The theory of everything – Part 1[...............]This took me ages to do, to be continued..............is it readable?If you spent half as much time learning as you did "teaching" you might have something to teach.