[guest39538]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Objects observed in deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more—are found to have a redshift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;
This Doppler shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.[2][3]


You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

In simple terms science is full of beans and the big bang and the universe is expanding is made up .  Science suffers from illusory superiority , they think we are all stupid and naïve , It is the other way around.

[Bored chemist]

science is full of beans and the big bang and the universe is expanding is made up .  Science suffers from illusory superiority

If you don't like it, why not simply leave?

[guest39538]

science is full of beans and the big bang and the universe is expanding is made up .  Science suffers from illusory superiority

If you don't like it, why not simply leave?

I have a problem with I have to correct fools and naïve people , I can't leave why science keeps lying to the world .

Why lie and make things up that are not true ?  Religion does that so why is science doing the same for all these years?

[Bored chemist]

Why lie and make things up that are not true ?

It's you who is doing that, not science.
You know there's evidence showing the expansion.

[guest39538]

Why lie and make things up that are not true ?

It's you who is doing that, not science.
You know there's evidence showing the expansion.

Then please provide it as I can't find any . I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of this so what you going to use ?

[Bored chemist]

I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of this

No.
You have not.
You think you have but...

[guest39538]

I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of this

No.
You have not.
You think you have but...

I don't think I have , I know I have , even highlighted in the opening post .

The Hubble observes the redshift of receding objects , anything added onto that is subjective and not objective based on the evidence . 

Show me one shred of evidence that space or the universe itself is expanding ?

You haven't got any have you other than what Hubble says  and Hubble does not say space is observed to be expanding . It is quite clearly stated what Hubble says .

[Lance Canham]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 15:33:00Quote from: Thebox on Today at 15:04:48I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of thisNo.You have not.You think you have but...I don't think I have , I know I have , even highlighted in the opening post . The Hubble observes the redshift of receding objects , anything added onto that is subjective and not objective based on the evidence .  Show me one shred of evidence that space or the universe itself is expanding ? You haven't got any have you other than what Hubble says  and Hubble does not say space is observed to be expanding . It is quite clearly stated what Hubble says .

Think out of "The Box"  The universe is not expanding as its already infinite if its flat.  So what's happening - its expanding locally there is another place way far away from here - unimaginably far where space is compressing.  There is an infinite number of areas where as far as you can see is expanding and just as many where space is compressing.  If the large scale structure goes on forever and there is a similar less defined larger structure and so on and so on out to infinity then the universe is not expanding - it is locally yet for all we can see it is an insignificant spec.
 

[Bored chemist]

I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of this

No.
You have not.
You think you have but...

I don't think I have , I know I have , even highlighted in the opening post .

The Hubble observes the redshift of receding objects , anything added onto that is subjective and not objective based on the evidence . 

Show me one shred of evidence that space or the universe itself is expanding ?

You haven't got any have you other than what Hubble says  and Hubble does not say space is observed to be expanding . It is quite clearly stated what Hubble says .

Do you really not understand that, if all the bits are moving apart, the whole thing is expanding?

[Ophiolite]

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

[guest39538]

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

Yes , of course , they are definitely moving away from us and each other .

[guest39538]

I've already demonstrated Hubble doesn't show evidence of this

No.
You have not.
You think you have but...

I don't think I have , I know I have , even highlighted in the opening post .

The Hubble observes the redshift of receding objects , anything added onto that is subjective and not objective based on the evidence . 

Show me one shred of evidence that space or the universe itself is expanding ?

You haven't got any have you other than what Hubble says  and Hubble does not say space is observed to be expanding . It is quite clearly stated what Hubble says .

Do you really not understand that, if all the bits are moving apart, the whole thing is expanding?

No , the whole thing isn't expanding at all , time is expanding relative to fixed space .  The universe is the observed and beyond, the visual universe is as far as we can see . 

[Ophiolite]

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

Yes , of course , they are definitely moving away from us and each other .

When conponents of a system, in this case the universe, move away from each other, this is called expansion. On what basis are you claiming it is not expansion?

[guest39538]

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

Yes , of course , they are definitely moving away from us and each other .

When conponents of a system, in this case the universe, move away from each other, this is called expansion. On what basis are you claiming it is not expansion?

On the basis of semantics  ,  a metric expansion between point sources does not equate to the universe expanding or space itself is expanding .  It equates to receding objects .  Now luckily I've been at this for a very long time  and I have the ''fix'' . 

All you  have to do is agree space is fixed and immovable and time is expanding into space .  Time is indistinguishable from space but is independent of space .  Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging , I can demonstrate this . Everything is time and beyond time is absolute space , time is expanding into absolute space and time has mass and density .

[mad aetherist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Objects observed in deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more—are found to have a redshift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;
This Doppler shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.[2][3]

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .
In simple terms science is full of beans and the big bang and the universe is expanding is made up .  Science suffers from illusory superiority , they think we are all stupid and naïve , It is the other way around.

Conrad Ranzan explains redshift, it is due to photons stretching due to gravity as a photon nears mass & then due to a 2nd dose of stretching as the photon un-nears mass.
In addition Ranzan explains that there is true redshift, but this is due to stars moving inside each cosmic cell, there being an infinite number of cells in an infinite universe.

Reginald Cahill explains that a proper examination of the Nobel prize winning numbers shows no accelerating expansion.

Arp has shown that redshift is not a good indicator of speed.

[Ophiolite]

On the basis of semantics 

You need a new dictionary. You don't get to redefine words, not if you wish to conduct intelligent conversations.

Now luckily I've been at this for a very long time  and I have the ''fix'' . 

I think you may have been at it rather too long.

All you  have to do is agree space is fixed and immovable and time is expanding into space .  Time is indistinguishable from space but is independent of space .  Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging , I can demonstrate this . Everything is time and beyond time is absolute space , time is expanding into absolute space and time has mass and density .

Word salad that has been out of the refrigerator, in the hot sun, for way too long.

Thank you for your responses. Don't waste anymore time on replying. I certainly shan't be wasting anymore on reading what you write.

[guest39538]

Relative to an infinite Universe

The visual universe is a single photon that contains information

A single photon that can not be observed , light doesn't escape a photon as a photon is light itself and does not emit light because it is the light . 

In an infinite universe a visual universe wouldn't be visible from the outside , it would appear to be a BH .


Here is ''picture'' of our visual universe in an infinite space ,


in.jpg (3.32 kB . 524x323 - viewed 1027 times)

It's in the middle but you can't see it because it's a photon and it hasn't entered your eyes .

Added- so when you eventually find a way to leave our visual universe , just don't be surprised when you pass the event horizon that the visual universe behind you vanishes in an instant and all sense of time and information is lost , the void state of the quantum leap before you enter another visual universe which will seem like another visual universe spontaneously appeared .

P.s because you stop aging when you leave , 1.s will feel like an eternity .

[guest39538]

ql.jpg (25.92 kB . 524x323 - viewed 1010 times)

Quantum leap , we have to synchronise with them so we can make the leap . We're flying blind ….mind gone blank now , lost the voices in my head . , my own thoughts of course .

If we don't find a way to synchronise . we'll end up lost in the never ever .

[OmegaOm]

science is full of beans and the big bang and the universe is expanding is made up .  Science suffers from illusory superiority

If you don't like it, why not simply leave?

I have a problem with I have to correct fools and naïve people , I can't leave why science keeps lying to the world .


You do not understand what science is.
It is a self correcting system that keeps on pointing towards the truth and illiminates untruths.  Like eddison said he found 200 ways to not make the light bulb.

The big bang, dark matter, dark energy.  These are things that are on the edge of science.  Things, that need a heck of lot more verification to be considered absolute fact. BUt never the less, based on the evidence at hand these thoeries best descibe the data we recieve.  This does not mean these ideas are true.  Just that if you have to believe something, its best to go with what the science says. 
Now if you go with something like gravity, or quantum mechanics, or climate change and evolution.  These theories have so much evidence, based on decades or centuries of evidence that they might as well be considered certain.

A scienticfic thoery is accurate based on the amount of testing and evidence supporting it.  A scientists knows this fact. so you are not going to give good credit to a health study that studied 200 people eating eggs, as opposed to tens of thousands of experiments that validat quantum mechanics thoery. 

And even if the theory of quantum mechanics proved to be false in the future.  The theory now can predict to 19 decimals places.  And so even if in acuurate to 20+ decimals places, we can still use it.

Basically.  If you want to know the best possible truth.  Science is and will always be the best tool to get it.
Why lie and make things up that are not true ?  Religion does that so why is science doing the same for all these years?

[OmegaOm]

Science is more a way of thinking then it is a body of knowledge.