[guest39538]

79 views and not even a single attempt of discrediting what I have posted. That says it all.....

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

Is that a counter argument or to change the discussion ?

Try again

No, it's just me asking when you decided to adopt a a policy of giving up when proven wrong.
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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

If you were "obviously right" then you would be getting somewhere.
You are not, because you are not.
.

[guest39538]

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.

If you were "obviously right" then you would be getting somewhere.
You are not, because you are not.
.

No, I am right , but for some reason I am being blocked from getting anywhere, scientists really are fearing there jobs will be lost.
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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

My ideas falsify science and do work.

[guest39538]

The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts observable point sources of the universe with time.[1] It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. It means that the early universe did not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" the universe - instead space itself changed, carrying the early universe with it as it grew. This is a completely different kind of expansion than the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. It also seems to be a property of the entire universe as a whole rather than a phenomenon that applies just to one part of the universe or can be observed from "outside" it.

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. Physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy, appearing as a cosmological constant in the simplest gravitational models as a way to explain the acceleration. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently-favored cosmological model (known as "ΛCDM"), this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future. In June 2016, NASA and ESA scientists reported that the universe was found to be expanding 5% to 9% faster than thought earlier, based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope.[2]

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 spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important. These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light, although the definition of "separation" is different from that used in an inertial frame. This can be seen when observing distant galaxies more than the Hubble radius away from us (approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs or 14.7 billion light-years); these galaxies have a recession speed that is faster than the speed of light. Light that is emitted today from galaxies beyond the cosmological event horizon, about 5 gigaparsecs or 16 billion light-years, will never reach us, although we can still see the light that these galaxies emitted in the past. Because of the high rate of expansion, it is also possible for a distance between two objects to be greater than the value calculated by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe. These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[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]

[guest39538]

The metric expansion is caused by Quantum field density radial increase.


dr1.jpg (50.27 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4300 times)


The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.  I and my mind will be lost for all time.

[guest39538]

 .→
>E  =  >r

Thank me later.

Q.F.P

[PmbPhy]

The metric expansion is caused by Quantum field density radial increase.


dr1.jpg (50.27 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4300 times)


The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.  I and my mind will be lost for all time.

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!

[guest39538]

The metric expansion is caused by Quantum field density radial increase.


dr1.jpg (50.27 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4300 times)


The world is getting very close to me saying ''stuff'' it.  I and my mind will be lost for all time.

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!

That suppose to be an attempt to discredit what I am saying?

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?

[guest39538]

I drew you the question


drew it.jpg (49.06 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4037 times)

[atbsphotography]

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

[guest39538]

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.

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?

p.s space as never been proved to be expanding.

[atbsphotography]

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

[atbsphotography]

p.s space as never been proved to be expanding.

Is that so?

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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

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) 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.

[guest39538]

p.s space as never been proved to be expanding.

Is that so?

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.

Yes that is so, the hubble red-shift is of light off a distant body , nothing to do with space.

Visible light is independent of space.