[atbsphotography]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[atbsphotography]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

Maybe I should of said static, a mono-pole static , but I am trying not to give it all away.

[atbsphotography]

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

[PmbPhy]

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?
[/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!

[guest39538]

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?

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!

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

but I am trying not to give it all away.

You have nothing to give, and we all now it.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse. 

[Bored chemist]

I can correct this and they ignore this.  Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...

ok?

No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.

Had you forgotten?

[guest39538]

xy.jpg (71.26 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 4283 times)

[guest39538]

I can correct this and they ignore this.  Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...

ok?

No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.

Had you forgotten?

I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.

[Bored chemist]

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.

As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse. 

That doesn't work as an explanation.
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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

As that light is travelling toward you, it is spreading out x and y in proportion to the inverse. 

That doesn't work as an explanation.
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?

I have my friends here, I will answer you in a bit when they have gone and I concentrate more.

[guest39538]

I drew it you before i go off , the red -shift is our  end not the object end,


red.jpg (69.7 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 7836 times)

[Bored chemist]

I drew it you before i go off , the red -shift is our  end not the object end,


red.jpg (69.7 kB . 1914x907 - viewed 7836 times)

That scribble offers no explanation of why the shift happens- it just repeats your unevinced claim.

Do you even science?

[guest39538]

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.

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

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.