Merged: Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? Pt 2

[arthwollipot]

Okay, Reality Check has taken over, there's no need for me any more.

[Pixie of key]

The universe is eternal.

The visible universe has a beginning which is based on eternal motion.

Motion is eternal.

Motion = energy.

Motion = pushing force.

Everything which is physical way real and moving "in" space is pushing force.

Eternal circulation is based only on pushing force which is motion.

Therefore pulling force/arching space does not exist.

Thus the motion/energy of which the visible universe was born existed yet before the visible universe came into existence out of it.

In the eternal and infinite space there are extremely dense and massive objects that are very far away from each other. All of them are located far outside the visible universe and the expanding visible universe protrudes away from one such object. Thereby the expanding condensations absorb motion originally from other similar objects to themselves. This is the matter of motion/energy i.e. remains of very old detectable kind of universes.

These extremely dense and massive objects recycle the eternal motion/energy among each other and during this action there are detectable kinds of galaxies born out of the extremely dense motion/energy that is directed away from those very objects.

If there were no remains of the old universes that still have areas of different densities protruding in the contrary direction no detectable kind of visible universe could ever be born.

First the supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies are born out of zillions of individual condensations that expand and recycle the expanding motion/energy among each other.

The external motion/energy protruding towards gets the expansion of these objects to accelerate very strongly at the same time. As a result there is suddenly an extremely great pressure in the center of a large area with no gravitational force at all.

Now there is outward expanding motion/energy being pressed from the center of this area out of which new expanding stars come to existence by the aid of the external motion/energy in a similar manner. Also new detectable kind of matter is born consisting of the cores of expanding atoms that recycle among each other the expanding motion/energy with a nature of expanding light.

In this case the external motion originates from a supermassive object in another galaxy’s center that also expands in a manner that expanding motion/energy protrudes outward of it. This expanding motion/energy has the nature of expanding cores of atoms and thus it also has the nature of expanding stars.

Space is eternal and infinite room that is nothing at all.

Therefore space does not expand or arch.

The general redshift of light does not prove that expanding space exists.

The bending in the trajectory of light for example when passing the sun does not prove that arching space exists.

So called gravitational redshift of light does not prove that gravitation or arching space exist.

The phenomena in question are a proof of photons expanding and recycling expanding motion/energy among each other and therefore the light generally redshifts during its journey. Therefore the light bends when it passes the sun and therefore the expanding light protruding outward from the dense star gravitationally redshifts so to speak.

New expanding photons interact with old expanding photons that originate from other galaxies of the superbunch/cluster of galaxies. Interacting with new expanding photons the speed of old expanding photons increases and therefore the old light generally redshifts so to speak.

Expanding photons that are originally from billions of galaxies protrude towards the expanding sun. These photons have recycled expanding motion/energy during their journey and the motion/energy protrudes towards the sun in the areas in between the expanding photons and then collides with the expanding photons that are protruding past the sun getting their trajectory to bend towards the expanding sun.

Thanks Niko

EternalRecycling

Entropy working in every level, also very small! I mean, inside quarks and photons too! Of course! Or if not, WHY NOT?

🤔
.

[MikeG]

Where's that copy & pasted from?

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Where's that copy & pasted from?

From here

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

🤔

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

The universe is eternal. ...

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Where's that copy & pasted from?

15th June 2009: Pixie of Key is a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos. And a crank website full of the gibberish that he has just cut and pasted.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

The universe is eternal.

Possibly.

Quote:

The visible universe has a beginning which is based on eternal motion.

Based on? If you mean our knowledge of the Big Bang arises from analysing the motions of galaxies, then okay. If you mean something more than that then please explain.

Quote:

Motion is eternal.

Not clear what you mean by this. Maybe you just mean momentum is conserved, in which case cool. Maybe you mean something else, if so please explain.

Quote:

Motion = energy.

There is such a thing as kinetic energy, yes.

Quote:

Motion = pushing force.

No, I don't see this. If you had two particles that didn't interact they would never push against each other, no matter how much relative motion existed between the two. They could approach to arbitrarily small distances at arbitrarily high velocities without any pushing happening.

Quote:

Everything which is physical way real and moving "in" space is pushing force.

No.

Quote:

Eternal circulation is based only on pushing force which is motion.

No.

Quote:

Therefore pulling force/arching space does not exist.

This is just an assertion. You are basically saying "there is nothing other than pushing, therefore there is no pulling" which is equivalent to "there is nothing other than pushing, therefore there is nothing other than pushing." It's not only a tautology. It's also wrong.

The rest of your post makes even less sense than the above and is just something you dreamed up.

[Pixie of key]

Dark Energy May Not Be A Constant, Which Would Lead To A Revolution In Physics

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...o#5d115bf8b737

Galaxys born inside to outside.

First born expanding supermassive concentrations with own 3 D "big bang" and later this expanding supermassive concentrations collide with each others and then born new expanding galaxys inside to outside.

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

🤔

[Pixie of key]

Motion = pushing force.

"No, I don't see this. If you had two particles that didn't interact they would never push against each other, no matter how much relative motion existed between the two. They could approach to arbitrarily small distances at arbitrarily high velocities without any pushing happening."

All particle, what our machine can register, expanding and recycling expanding pushing force together.

There an here is no matter and forces.

There and here is just pushing force.

"In" visible universe we have just xpanding pushing pushing force.

🤔

[Pixie of key]

We can explain everything with pushing force.

Also magnetism.

Nobody cant explain pulling force with particle.

And curving space is god which dont exist.

��

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

All particle, what our machine can register, expanding and recycling expanding pushing force together.

What?

Quote:

There an here is no matter and forces.

There and here is just pushing force.

"In" visible universe we have just xpanding pushing pushing force.

��

Pure assertion.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

We can explain everything with pushing force.

Okay. Let's start simple. I'm holding a ball 5 feet above the ground. I let it go. What happens and why?

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Okay. Let's start simple. I'm holding a ball 5 feet above the ground. I let it go. What happens and why?

Expanding Earth pushing our expanding body away from expanding Earth centre.

You pushing expanding ball away from expanding Earth centre.

You let it go and expanding air cant pushing expanding ball away from expanding Earth centre so much what you can.

Now expanding ball is not moving away from expanding Earth centre so fast what your expanding hand.

��

[Pixie of key]

This video is not so good.

Maybe i maked later better one.

But even is not so good, there is one part that idea how magnetism working with out pulling force.

There is expanding pushing force and other expanding pushing force can activate other expanding pushing force.

Before that other magnet or steel have to activate that expanding pushing force and then is can activate expanding pushing force what moving other direction.

https://youtu.be/NsKHRHH4wvM

🤔

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding Earth pushing our expanding body away from expanding Earth centre.

You pushing expanding ball away from expanding Earth centre.

You let it go and expanding air cant pushing expanding ball away from expanding Earth centre so much what you can.

Now expanding ball is not moving away from expanding Earth centre so fast what your expanding hand.

��

Okay. The earth is expanding. I assume it's also accelerating in it's expansion, given that the ball appears to accelerate toward it when released, yes?

Why don't two people on the surface of this expanding earth appear to move away from each other?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

This video is not so good.

I'm in China and my VPN isn't working so I can't watch youtube videos.

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Okay. The earth is expanding. I assume it's also accelerating in it's expansion, given that the ball appears to accelerate toward it when released, yes?

Why don't two people on the surface of this expanding earth appear to move away from each other?

Well, ofcourse there is some expanding pushing force from all other expanding galaxys expanding stars which pushing us that way where is expanding Earth centre.

Two expanding people moving away from each other same way what all matter and light expanding.

🤔

[Pixie of key]

"But in 2019, a new one has arisen. One camp, using relics from the earliest stages of the Big Bang, keeps getting values of ~67 km/s/Mpc, with a claimed uncertainty of just 1-2%. The other camp, using measurements from the relatively nearby Universe, claims ~73 km/s/Mpc, with uncertainties of just 2-3%. These errors are so small that they no longer overlap. Something is wrong, and we cannot figure out where."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...0#618ee1562cda

"Something is wrong,"

Something?!?

😂😂😂

Everything is totally wrong.

Spaghetmonster = expanding space + pulling force / curving space + extra dimensions + dark matter with pulling force + dark energy which someway interactive with expanding space some how.

🤔

[Porpoise of Life]

Judging by your signature, I'm tilting at windmills, but...

Any chance of you supporting your assertions with anything apart from your intuition?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Well, ofcourse there is some expanding pushing force from all other expanding galaxys expanding stars which pushing us that way where is expanding Earth centre.

Two expanding people moving away from each other same way what all matter and light expanding.

🤔

I’m talking about standing in a field next to my friend. Why doesn’t he drift away from me, carried by the expanding earth?

It’s a pretty simple question.

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I’m talking about standing in a field next to my friend. Why doesn’t he drift away from me, carried by the expanding earth?

It’s a pretty simple question.

Answer is very very simple.

Because every quarks expanding same way.

All expanding Earth quarks and also your and your friends quarks.

🤔

[Pixie of key]

This IS VERY VERY INTERESTING

https://youtu.be/Qs7fbwpypVM

🤔

[smartcooky]

*** checks in ***

Sees that Pixie of Key is still posting gobbledegook from fantasyland, and still thinks nonsensical youtube videos count as evidence.

See y'all again three months!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Dark Energy May Not Be A Constant, Which Would Lead To A Revolution In Physics

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...o#5d115bf8b737

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

The insanity that a dark energy article is about galaxy formation.
This is interesting, mainstream working science written by an astronomer.
Dark Energy May Not Be A Constant, Which Would Lead To A Revolution In Physics

Quote:

Recently, however, a team of scientists has begun using X-ray emitting quasars, which are much brighter and, hence, visible at even earlier times: when the Universe was only one billion years old. In an interesting new paper, scientists Guido Risaliti and Elisabeta Lusso use quasars as a standard candle to go farther back than we ever have in measuring the nature of dark energy. What they found is still tentative, but astounding nonetheless.

If verified and correct, this has implications for the long term future of the universe.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Motion = pushing force. ...

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

Insanity of only pushing forces creating motion (unlike charges pull, gravity pulls).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

We can explain everything with pushing force.

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

A total delusion that he can explain everything with pushing force.
We can explain everything with real science that works and has been created and checked over centuries by many scientists.
He has ignorant delusions and stupid cartoons in deluded videos and a crank web site.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding...

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

Insane gibberish that ignores a ball being dropped from 5 feet above the ground.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

This video is not so good....

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

A promise to make yet another crank video abut his delusions. This is the usual science by cartoons and ignorant fantasies stupidity

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Well, ofcourse there is some expanding pushing force from all other expanding galaxys...

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

"But in 2019, a new one has arisen. One camp, using relics from the earliest stages of the Big Bang, keeps getting values of ~67 km/s/Mpc, with a claimed uncertainty of just 1-2%. The other camp, using measurements from the relatively nearby Universe, claims ~73 km/s/Mpc, with uncertainties of just 2-3%. These errors are so small that they no longer overlap. Something is wrong, and we cannot figure out where."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...0#618ee1562cda

"Something is wrong,"

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

An insane lie about science. The science is that we detected that the universe is expanding back in 1927. This article does not state that an expanding universe is wrong.
The issue is that 2 different methods of measuring the rate of expansion of the universe give values that we have known are different for decades. There was a chance that they would become the same with more data. The latest result is that is not the case. Thus there is probably something wrong with 1 or both of the methods.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

This IS VERY VERY INTERESTING

The same gibberish, ignorance and lies about science that was in the 10 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread and currently locked continuation.

VERY VERY INTERESTING demonstration of Pixie of key's abysmal delusions.
This is the abysmal delusion that he can do science about sunspots and planetary orbits. The obvious insanity in previous videos is summing up orbital periods of the rocky planets and dividing by 4. That does not give the times when rocky planets are on one side of the Sun and possibly creating sunspots. Made more insane because it is the gas giants that have the dominant gravitational effect on the Sun.

Yet another insanely deluded and lying video from him on sunspots.
Yet another insanely deluded and lying video from him on "Maunder Minimum, Jupiter Giant Red Spot, Reason for Hurricane and Tornados"
A video insanely ignoring centuries of astronomy (planetary orbits and sunspots).

A "Reason why there was Sunspots 1940 - 2000, even should not be" video that lies in the title. The Sun has been producing sunspots as far back as we can determine, certainly during the centuries that we have been recording them. There have been grand solar minimums and maximums in the past. No scientist has stated that "1940 - 2000" should be a grand solar minimum ,

[Pixie of key]

Wolf minimum 1280 - 1350

Spörer minimum 1460 - 1550

Maunder minimum 1645 - 1715

Dalton minimum 1790 - 1830

Jokkers special 1938 - 1999

So, lets put Neptunus orbit time 165 years and check out what time you have then.

Wolf about 1320 + 165 = 1485 and it is Spörer

Spörer about 1485 + 165 = 1650 and it is Maunder

Maunder about 1650 + 165 = 1815 and it is Dalton

Dalton about 1815 + 165 = 1980 and it is Jokkers special

I say, it was because 1572 and 1604 supernovas.

��

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...I say, it was because 1572 and 1604 supernovas.

Abysmal stupidity about supernova causing sunspots when all we get is a bit of radiation from them and they last for weeks, not decades.

Yet another insanely deluded and lying video from him on sunspots.
Yet another insanely deluded and lying video from him on "Maunder Minimum, Jupiter Giant Red Spot, Reason for Hurricane and Tornados"
A video insanely ignoring centuries of astronomy (planetary orbits and sunspots).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

So, lets put Neptunus orbit time 165 years and check out what time you have then.

Ignorant delusion that Neptune causes grand sunspot minima.

Grand solar minima and maxima do not happen every 164.8 years !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Jokkers special 1938 - 1999

An insane "Jokkers special 1938 - 1999" lie since this is a period of high sunspot activity.

Modern Maximum (1914 to about 2000)

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Answer is very very simple.

Because every quarks expanding same way.

All expanding Earth quarks and also your and your friends quarks.

🤔

Okay. I see. So the earth is expanding, but I'm expanding too, and so is everything else, so the shape of things remains the same. Does the speed of light also increase proportionate to the expansion?

The moon is also expanding too. So, why don't the earth and moon expand into each other? Okay, so the moon is moving away from the earth, but there's no gravitational force, there's just this expansion. So the moon should be expanding as it moves away from the earth in a straight line. I'm not seeing how you can get an orbit from this picture.

An astronaut in orbit is also expanding, and expanding at the rate that keeps his size proportional to the earth a constant, in order to preserve relative shapes. So, if he puts a pen an inch from his chest shouldn't he expand into it and the pen end up on his chest, appearing to experience a force toward him?

I'm also having a hard time seeing how this expansion could explain the force of gravity being proportional the 1/R². Shouldn't it just be constant?

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Wolf minimum 1280 - 1350

Spörer minimum 1460 - 1550

Maunder minimum 1645 - 1715

Dalton minimum 1790 - 1830

Jokkers special 1938 - 1999

So, lets put Neptunus orbit time 165 years and check out what time you have then.

Wolf about 1320 + 165 = 1485 and it is Spörer

Spörer about 1485 + 165 = 1650 and it is Maunder

Maunder about 1650 + 165 = 1815 and it is Dalton

Dalton about 1815 + 165 = 1980 and it is Jokkers special

I say, it was because 1572 and 1604 supernovas.

��

Reason is here

https://youtu.be/Qs7fbwpypVM

🤔

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Okay. I see. So the earth is expanding, but I'm expanding too, and so is everything else, so the shape of things remains the same. Does the speed of light also increase proportionate to the expansion?

The moon is also expanding too. So, why don't the earth and moon expand into each other? Okay, so the moon is moving away from the earth, but there's no gravitational force, there's just this expansion. So the moon should be expanding as it moves away from the earth in a straight line. I'm not seeing how you can get an orbit from this picture.

An astronaut in orbit is also expanding, and expanding at the rate that keeps his size proportional to the earth a constant, in order to preserve relative shapes. So, if he puts a pen an inch from his chest shouldn't he expand into it and the pen end up on his chest, appearing to experience a force toward him?

I'm also having a hard time seeing how this expansion could explain the force of gravity being proportional the 1/R². Shouldn't it just be constant?

Expanding Earth and Moon system.


https://youtu.be/3RhfhpK2tX4

You cant look youtubevideos, but some can.

Ok, when expanding Moon is between expanding Sun and expanding Earth, expanding Moon get more expanding pushing force away from expanding Sun.

This is because expanding particle from expanding Sun collide inside expanding Moon together with expanding particle from expanding Earth.

When expanding Earth is between expanding Moon and expanding Sun, this expanding pushing force particle from Sun and Earth moving inside Moon same direction and then there is no collide with this particle.

But this time inside Earth is, because expanding pushingvforce particle from expanding Sun and expanding Moon collide together inside Earth and now expanding Earth get nore pushing force away from Sun, you know or maybe not.

🤔

Matti Nykänen was King. Best skijumper ever.

🇫🇮

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding Earth and Moon system.


https://youtu.be/3RhfhpK2tX4

You cant look youtubevideos, but some can.

Ok, when expanding Moon is between expanding Sun and expanding Earth, expanding Moon get more expanding pushing force away from expanding Sun.

This is because expanding particle from expanding Sun collide inside expanding Moon together with expanding particle from expanding Earth.

When expanding Earth is between expanding Moon and expanding Sun, this expanding pushing force particle from Sun and Earth moving inside Moon same direction and then there is no collide with this particle.

But this time inside Earth is, because expanding pushingvforce particle from expanding Sun and expanding Moon collide together inside Earth and now expanding Earth get nore pushing force away from Sun, you know or maybe not.

🤔

Matti Nykänen was King. Best skijumper ever.

🇫🇮

That's not how forces, or just particle collisions, work "expanding pushing" or otherwise. Opposing forces or particle collisions will act counter to each other. As a result your net "pushing" for the in between two bodies case would be less than just from either of those one bodies. Conversely force and/or particle collisions that act in the same direction add to each other. Hence the situation where you get your greater pushing on the one body is when it is not between the other two, as your forces or "collisions" would be acting in the same or similar direction.

Put more simply in order for your in between situation to be additive, a greater force away from the sun on the in between body, your outer body force/particle would have to be pulling and not pushing.




So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?


If not, why not?


If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

[Pixie of key]

There is expanding pushing force from expanding Sun which moving inside expanding Moon and giving some pushing force for Moon expanding nucleus of atoms.

Not all, put some.

But when expanding Moon is between expanding Earth and expanding Sun, expanding pushing force particle from Earth collide with expanding pushing force particle from Sun and thats why this expanding particle start interactive with expanding Moon expanding nucleus of atoms much stonger way and thats why expanding Moon start pushing away from expanding Sun more faster what expanding Earth.

Maybe too much for you the Man?!?

🤔