Merged: Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? Pt 2

[Pixie of key]

The rate of expansion of the universe does not match - "We have ignored something in the cosmological model"
Advanced measurements of the Hubble Space Telescope continue to give confusing results about the evolution of the universe. There is a clear difference between the ancient rate of expansion determined from cosmic background radiation and the current movements of galaxies.

https: //www.avaruus.fi/uutiset/kosmologia-ja-teoreettinen-fysiikka/maail ...

"Thanks to the refinement, the likelihood that expansion rates would conflict randomly drops from 1: 3,000 to as much as 1: 100,000.

"It is not just a matter of having two tests give different results, we are measuring something fundamentally different," Nobel laureate Adam Reiss of STScI and Johns Hopkins University explains.

"On the one hand, we have our measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe today. On the other hand, the early universe predicts how fast the universe should expand."

"If the measured values ​​do not match, there is a very strong probability that we have ignored something in the cosmological model that combines these two eras," Reiss emphasizes. "

It's all about the simplicity of how well / powerful the newer, slightly faster expanding light interacts with the older expanding lights.

That is, how quickly it is able to accelerate the rate of the old expanding light to its own.

The faster the older the expanding light stretches, which is generally redshift.

That is, these contradictory observations prove that the general redshift of light cannot even be explained by some inexplicable hokusk pokkus expanding space.

The explanation lies in the fact that the lights themselves expand in space outward into existing space, interacting with each other, whereby they accelerate each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding light increases in the same proportion as the substances and the lights expand.

🤔

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

The rate of expansion of the universe does not match - "We have ignored something in the cosmological model"
Advanced measurements of the Hubble Space Telescope continue to give confusing results about the evolution of the universe. There is a clear difference between the ancient rate of expansion determined from cosmic background radiation and the current movements of galaxies.

https: //www.avaruus.fi/uutiset/kosmologia-ja-teoreettinen-fysiikka/maail ...

"Thanks to the refinement, the likelihood that expansion rates would conflict randomly drops from 1: 3,000 to as much as 1: 100,000.

"It is not just a matter of having two tests give different results, we are measuring something fundamentally different," Nobel laureate Adam Reiss of STScI and Johns Hopkins University explains.

"On the one hand, we have our measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe today. On the other hand, the early universe predicts how fast the universe should expand."

"If the measured values ​​do not match, there is a very strong probability that we have ignored something in the cosmological model that combines these two eras," Reiss emphasizes. "

It's all about the simplicity of how well / powerful the newer, slightly faster expanding light interacts with the older expanding lights.

That is, how quickly it is able to accelerate the rate of the old expanding light to its own.

The faster the older the expanding light stretches, which is generally redshift.

The article you cite makes no such claims.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

That is, these contradictory observations prove that the general redshift of light cannot even be explained by some inexplicable hokusk pokkus expanding space.

Again, an assertion not supported by the article cited. A change in the rate of expansion explains the, well, different rates of expansion from then to now.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

The explanation lies in the fact that the lights themselves expand in space outward into existing space, interacting with each other, whereby they accelerate each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding light increases in the same proportion as the substances and the lights expand.

🤔

You have provided no experimental evidence of such expanding light let alone accelerating "each other's expansion".


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?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...I think i found out how universe working. ...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
Decades of insanely ignorant gibberish does not explain anything. Another spate of insanely ignorant gibberish still does not explain anything.

Repeats ignorant delusions and lies about mainstream cosmology.

1. It is only his ignorant imagination that space "radiates information".
2. A lie that we "manipulate space to get information about it"
3. An deluded "expanding space is a completely religious concept" lie.
4. An insane "change the trajectory of the expanding light with billions of years of expanding light by conducting a scientific experiment" delusion as if he did not know what a light-year is !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

The rate of expansion of the universe does not match ...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
His decades of insanely ignorant gibberish does not explain anything, especially the tension in the value of the Hubble constant when he cannot produce any Hubble constant at all from his delusions.

An insane "cannot even be explained by some inexplicable hokusk pokkus expanding space" lie. An expanding universe must produce Hubble's law as shown in 1927. The issue is about the measurement of Hubble's constant.

We can use actual science to resolve the Hubble constant tension. There is still a small chance that it is a systematic error in the processing of the data. The "near" universe calculations using galaxies seem to be more robust and scrutinized to me so it may be a systematic error in the "far" universe modeling of the CMBR. There is also the possibility of new physics.

[Pixie of key]

For you all who want to know how universe really working

https://youtu.be/A-45AqYtkFw

.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

For you all who want to know how universe really working

An insane lie from Pixie of key because he has only ignorant delusions about the universe and idiotic crank YouTube video.
Pixie of key starts with the insanity that there are no pulling forces (unlike charges attract, pull on a string attached to a toy!, gravity pulls). Then things just get worse !
The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread

This is his insane "For The Man from international SKEPTICS forum" video that has been spammed here many times.
Persistent ""Expanding space is naked empire" lie and posts the "For The Man from international SKEPTICS forum" lying video from Mar 21, 2017 yet again.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This is his insane "For The Man from international SKEPTICS forum" video that has been spammed here many times.
Persistent ""Expanding space is naked empire" lie and posts the "For The Man from international SKEPTICS forum" lying video from Mar 21, 2017 yet again.

Seriously, that one again?


Pixie of key, that video, again, only shows that you do understand exactly why trying to push something with a fully extended string or rope doesn't work. Again, because some material configurations react differently to pushing forces than they do to pulling forces. So again why the continued deliberate deception?

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by The Man

Seriously, that one again?


Pixie of key, that video, again, only shows that you do understand exactly why trying to push something with a fully extended string or rope doesn't work. Again, because some material configurations react differently to pushing forces than they do to pulling forces. So again why the continued deliberate deception?

.

This is too much for you.

https://youtu.be/xeWF5pHV7q8

Look, think.

Is there pulling force at all?

��

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

Insults and lies from Pixie of key.
The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread

The video is "Sidosvoimia ei tarvita minkään ilmiön selittämiseen" in Finnish ("No binding forces are needed to explain any phenomenon.") and looks like 2 minutes of renting from some deluded crank.

Quote:

No binding forces are needed to explain any phenomenon. The current atomic model is completely wrong. When a researcher sends a photon with a suitable energy toward the nucleus of an atom, he thinks he will remove the electron from the atom, even though he is actually creating a new electron from the motion / energy that is being ejected from the nucleus all the time. That expanding motion / energy that the expanding nucleus of atoms circulates with each other is made up largely of energy that our devices cannot detect. Electrons and photons are created when an external pushing force causes it to expand much more strongly than normal. Jukka Savorinen

The author of this video is totally deluded and there is some of Pixie of key's insanity at the end of the description.
The author's delusion is that energy does not create an electron alone. There are physical conservation laws. If an electron is created an oppositely charged (law of charge conservation), opposite spin (law of spin conservation), opposite momentum (law of momentum conservation) particle must also be created. That is a positron. See pair production for example.
The author's delusion is that electrons can be removed from atoms with energy that is much too low to create electrons (E=mc^2). Or basically no energy at all - metals have free electrons . To create an electron needs 0.51099895000(15) MeV - that is a gamma ray photon!

A deluded rant from an ignorant crank is not a experiment pushing an object with a fully extended string or rope .

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

.

This is too much for you.

https://youtu.be/xeWF5pHV7q8

Look, think.

Is there pulling force at all?

��

Again it only seems to be too much for you.

The experiment didn't include "pulling force at all". It included just a pushing force with a fully extended string. So, again, why won't you relate what you found in trying to push the object with the fully extended string? As your previous video shows you apparently understand why it would fail. So, again, why the continued deliberate deception?

[Pixie of key]

Why Do Matter Particles Come in Threes? A Physics Titan Weighs In.
By
CHARLIE WOOD
March 30, 2020

"Three progressively heavier copies of each type of matter particle exist, and no one knows why. A new paper by Steven Weinberg takes a stab at explaining the pattern."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-d...s-in-20200330/

Näin


I have a clear idea here.

At least for electrons, myons and tau particles.

So the point here is precisely at what point the expanding dark wave projecting out of the nucleus of the expanding atom meets the expanding densification projecting against us.

The closer the expanding nucleus of the atom, the more densely expanding the thrust densities of the pushing force are with each other, and thus the projection perpendicular to the nucleus interacts with a plurality of separate expanding densities, causing their expansion to accelerate explosively, the more massive the closer.

This also applies to the observation or assumption that the first stars were very massive.

Here, too, is the fact that in the early days, these super-massive galaxy centers were passing very close to each other or even colliding with each other at steep angles.

Then the expanding densities of the expanding dark matter protruding from these supermassive targets were more frequent with each other and when encountering the corresponding expanding densities with each other, they interacted, causing each other's expansion to accelerate to explosive, and the more massive the more extensively expandable.

Later, as the expanding galaxies were already full of expanding stars, the expanding thrust from them made these expanding super-massive targets of galaxy centers no longer overlap as close as when the first encounters occurred.

Alright. I have an idea for these quarks of different masses, but this was start.

��


Minulla on tähän selkee ajatus.

Ainakin elektronien, myonien ja tau hiukkasten osalta.

Eli juju tässä on nimenomaan siinä missä vaiheessa laajenevasta atomin ytimestä ulos työntyvä meille laajenevan pimeän työntävän aalto kohtaa vastaan työntyvän laajenevan tihentymän.

Mitä lähempänä laajenevaa atomin ydintä, sitä tiheämmin laajenevan työntävän voiman laajenevat tihentymät ovat keskenään ja näin ydintä kohti työntyvä tihentymä vuorovaikuttaa paljon useamman erillisen laajenevan tihentymän kanssa, saaden niiden laajenemisen kiihtymään räjähdyksenomaisesti, jolloin syntyy sitä massiivisempi isompi kokonaisuus mitä lähempänä ydintä kohtaaminen tapahtuu.

Tähän sopii myös havainto tai oletus siitä että ensimmäiset tähdet olivat erittäin massiivisia.

Tässäkin jujuna se että alkuaikoina nämä galaksien keskusten supermassiiviset kohteet ohittivat toisiansa hyvinkin läheltä tai saattoivat jopa törmäillä toistensa kanssa jyrkässä kulmassa.

Silloin näistä supermassiivisista kohteista ulos työntyneet laajenevan pimeän aineen laajenevat tihentymät olivat keskenään tiheämmin ja kohdatessaan vastaavia laajenevia tihentymiä tiheästi, ne vuorovaikuttivat keskenään, saaden toistensa laajenemisen kiihtymään räjähdyksenomaiseksi ja näin sitä massiivisempia laajenevia tähtiä mitä lähempää nämä laajenevat supermassiiviset kohteet toisensa ohittivat.

Myöhemmin kun laajenevissa galakseissa oli jo paljon laajenevia tähtiä, niistä peräisin oleva laajeneva työntävä voima sai aikaan sen etteivät nämä galaksien keskusten laajenevat supermassiiviset kohteet enää ohittaneet toisiansa niin läheltä kuin silloin kun ensimmäiset kohtaamiset tapahtuivat.

Ok. On minulla ajatus näihin eri massan omaaviin kvarkkeihinkin, mutta tässä jo asiaa aluksi.

��

And here's a rough example of how separate expanding densities combine to make a bigger expanding entity without pulling forces.

https://youtu.be/QboDTgped1E

The animation lacks the expanding thrust that these expanding densities reciprocate, and the thrust that projects through the expanding visible universe very quickly, and a small amount is absorbed by the expanding densities of the expanding visible universe.

��

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
The usual deluded rant that only explains how insane he is ! Deluded gibberish does mot explain anything in English, Finnish and especially not science . Science has a thing called mathematics. He is insanely ignorant of this fact!

Read what he cites and see how aational people try to explain how we may only observe 3 families of particle types by using actual things that exist in the universe and knowing what the flaws are.
Why Do Matter Particles Come in Threes? A Physics Titan Weighs In.

[Pixie of key]

Expanding supermassive objects, expanding stars, expanding electrons, and expanding photons are created on the same principle without pulling forces

Entropy, of course, also on a small scale all the time.

Yes, there is no need for tensile forces because it is sufficient that the expanding condensations circulating zillions of expanding pushing force begin to expand much faster at the same time, explosively.

Immediately, a very high pressure is applied to the center / fulcrum of the system formed by the rapidly expanding densities.

See and wonder how easily that can be described with 3D animation.

https://youtu.be/QboDTgped1E

Then try to find a video that describes the expansion of expanding space using 3D animation.

You won’t find that because the expansion of expanding space cannot be described in words, nor visually.

Expanding supermassive objects emerged at about the same time completed far apart. It was then that expanding light was released which is now perceived as background radiation.

Later, as the trajectories of these expanding supermassive objects met, expanding galaxies emerged from the inside out. That is, a lot of expanding stars from that dark expanding matter for us that protrudes from expanding supermassive objects.

And the principle is the same as in the way of expanding supermassive objects created without pulling forces.

That is, the expanding dark matter densities protruding from the expanding supermassive object met the expanding dark matter densities protruding from the other expanding supermassive object, their mutual interaction and the expansion of the zillions of separate expanding densities immediately intensified into an explosive one.

The expanding atomic nuclei continue to recycle, with all the other expanding atomic nuclei, the expanding pushing force in the form of zillions as separate expanding densities of dark energy which, by the same principle, give rise to new expanding electrons and new expanding photons.

🤔

Laajenevat supermassiiviset kohteet, laajenevat tähdet, laajenevat elektronit ja laajenevat fotonit syntyvät samalla periaatteella ilman vetäviä voimia

Entropiaa tietysti myös pienessä mittakaavassa koko ajan.

Niin, ei tarvita vetäviä voimia koska riittää että ziljoonat laajenevaa työntävää voimaa kierrättävät laajenevat tihentymät alkavat saman aikaisesti laajenemaan aikaisempaa paljon nopeammin, räjähdyksenomaisesti.

Välittömästi aikaisempaa nopeammin laajenevien tihentymien muodostaman systeemin keskelle / tukipisteeseen kohdistuu erittäin suuri paine ilman vetävää voimaa.

Katso ja ihmettele miten helposti tuo on kuvailtavissa 3 D animaation avulla.

https://youtu.be/QboDTgped1E

Yritä sitten etsiä video jossa kuvataan 3 D animaation avulla laajenevan avaruuden laajenemista.

Sellaista et löydä koska laajenevan avaruuden laajenemista ei voi kuvailla sanoin, eikä visuaalisesti.

Laajenevat supermassiiviset kohteet syntyivät about saman aikaisesti valmiiksi kauaksi toisistansa. Silloin vapautui laajenevaa valoa joka nykyisin havaitaan taustasäteilynä.

Myöhemmin näiden laajenevien supermassiivisten kohteiden liikeratojen kohdatessa, syntyivät laajenevat galaksit sisältä ulos päin. Eli paljon laajenevia tähtiä siitä meille pimeästä laajenevasta aineesta jota työntyy ulos laajenevista supermassiivisista kohteista.

Ja periaate sama kuin laajenevien supermassiivisten kohteiden tavassa syntyä ilman vetäviä voimia.

Eli laajenevasta supermassiivisesta kohteesta ulos työntyneet laajenevat pimeän aineen tihentymät kohtasivat toisesta laajenevasta supermassiivisesta kohteesta ulos työntyineitä laajenevia pimeän aineen tihentymiä, niiden keskinäinen vuorovaikutus ja ziljoonien erillisten laajenevien tihentymien laajeneminen kiihtyi räjähdyksenomaiseksi, niistä yhdistyi uusi laajeneva tähti jonka keskelle heti erittäin suuri paine ilman vetäviä voimia.

Laajenevat atomien ytimet kierrättävät edelleen kaikkien muiden laajenevien atomien ytimien kanssa laajenevaa työntävää voimaa ziljoonina erillisinä pimeän energian laajenevina tihentyminä joista syntyy samalla periaatteella uusia laajenevia elektroneja ja uusia laajenevia fotoneita.

🤔

[Pixie of key]

See and wonder how easily that can be described with 3D animation.

https://youtu.be/QboDTgped1E

Then try to find a video that describes the expansion of expanding space using 3D animation.

You won’t find that because the expansion of expanding space cannot be described in words, nor visually.

Expanding space is naked empire.

��

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
The usual deluded rant that only explains how insane he is !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

..

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
So much insanity in such a short post (thus the new title) !

• His insanity of linking to a different crank.
• His insanity of claiming that their delusions are his delusions.
• His insanity of thinking we will not read the description and know their deluded web site is not his demented web site!
• His insanity that there are no videos on textbook science, including the formation of galaxy clusters.
• His insanity that we use "3D animation" to model the universe.

[Little 10 Toes]

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]

Rope expierement for you

https://youtu.be/Nw53G5buuyI


This maybe too much for you?!?

https://youtu.be/xeWF5pHV7q8

🤔

[Little 10 Toes]

It just shows you don't understand English and can't follow directions.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

It just shows you don't understand English and can't follow directions.

If it is the same video as before it also clearly shows that he understands why the rope experiment wouldn't work. Specifically because the rope, mechanically, responds differently to pulling than it does to pushing forces

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread

His years long and insane lie that he has done an experiment pushing anything with an extended rope. He has a demented "Rope experiment / Randi / Stephen Hawking dont understund!" video where he rants and then pushes a board with his finger with a string in-between.

Idiotic insult of accusing us of not knowing that magnets attract and repel. That is his insanity, not anyone else older than about 5 who has played with magnets.
Shows how insane he is by debunking his own insanity that there are no pulling forces - magnets pull ! A North pole will pull on a South pole. An electromagnet can lift lots of metal against gravity.
Shows how insane he is by linking to his demented "Sidosvoimia ei tarvita minkään ilmiön selittämiseen", a video where he probably spews out more delusions in Finnish. He floats magnetic disks in a bowl of water and they do what we expect - like poles repel, unlike poles attract and they space themselves out.

[Pixie of key]

Se männöö muailmankuva täysin uusiksi.

Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform

https://www.esa.int/Science_Explorat...not_be_uniform

"The astronomers used X-ray temperature measurements of the extremely hot gas that pervades the clusters and compared the data with how bright the clusters appear in the sky. Clusters of the same temperature and located at a similar distance should appear similarly bright. But that is not what the astronomers observed.

“We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction,” says Thomas. “The difference was quite significant, around 30 per cent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky.”

Before challenging the widely accepted cosmology model, which provides the basis for estimating the cluster distances, Konstantinos and colleagues first looked at other possible explanations. Perhaps, there could be undetected gas or dust clouds obscuring the view and making clusters in a certain area appear dimmer. The data, however, do not support this scenario.

In some regions of space the distribution of clusters could be affected by bulk flows, large-scale motions of matter caused by the gravitational pull of extremely massive structures such as large cluster groups. This hypothesis, however, also seems unlikely. Konstantinos adds that the findings took the team by surprise.""

Mitäpä tuohon voi muuta sannoo kuin mitä minä olen sanonut jo monta aikoo.

Paitsi sen että laajeneva avaruus on keisari alasti.

🤔

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

]The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
Insanity of his delusions in Finnish?
A totally ignorant Pixie of key is incapable of understanding anything in the article or paper.
Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform
This is how science works. Scientists try very hard to test science and publish their results. Journals are happy to publish papers that show that science is wrong. At that point the papers have been peer reviewed by a few experts. What is more important in science is the peer review of the published paper by the hundreds of experts who read it.

Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX–T scaling relation by K. Migkas et.al. Published online 08 April 2020. That is 1 day ago. Few peers have analyzed it.

[Pixie of key]

Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform

https://www.esa.int/Science_Explorat...not_be_uniform

"The astronomers used X-ray temperature measurements of the extremely hot gas that pervades the clusters and compared the data with how bright the clusters appear in the sky. Clusters of the same temperature and located at a similar distance should appear similarly bright. But that is not what the astronomers observed.

“We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction,” says Thomas. “The difference was quite significant, around 30 per cent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky.”

Before challenging the widely accepted cosmology model, which provides the basis for estimating the cluster distances, Konstantinos and colleagues first looked at other possible explanations. Perhaps, there could be undetected gas or dust clouds obscuring the view and making clusters in a certain area appear dimmer. The data, however, do not support this scenario.

In some regions of space the distribution of clusters could be affected by bulk flows, large-scale motions of matter caused by the gravitational pull of extremely massive structures such as large cluster groups. This hypothesis, however, also seems unlikely. Konstantinos adds that the findings took the team by surprise.""

Expanding space is naked empire.

Hole visible universe expanding "in" infinity 3 D space which is nothing.

Expanding visible universe moving very fast away from space where is already just moved.

Expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

Also all expanding galaxys moving faster and faster about same direction "in" 3 D space which is nothing.

Now we have a good chance found out which direction hole expanding visible universe moving faster and faster.

I just wonder what name they giving for new dark god when they try explaing that thing.

.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
His usual insanity of lies and delusions in English this time.
The article is not about the Big Bang. There is no "dark god" new or old. There is an enormous amount of physical evidence that the Big Bang happened.
As the article and paper state in clear English (and even the Finnish he read it in!): The expansion of the universe was the same in all directions (isotropic) at ~380,000 years because the CMB is isotropic. Testing whether the expansion was isotropic after ~380,000 has had mixed results. The new paper claims that the measured expansion of the universe became anisotropic.

[Pixie of key]

3 D "Big Bang" happened when expanding supermassive concentrations born about same time "faraway" from eachother.

Expanding galaxys born inside to outside when two expanding supermassive concentrations collide together.

https://youtu.be/A-45AqYtkFw

��

Expanding space is naked empire.

��

[Little 10 Toes]

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet as described?


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]

So, with this observation, it is now possible to determine from which direction in which direction the visible universe expanding in space as a whole is pushing.

And so so fast that the whole expanding visible universe as one expanding energy field in one moment away from the area of space to which it had moved a moment ago, and so on.

The very rapid pushing force of all background is pushed through the expanding visible universe from every direction in every direction, except not directly from where we are pushing away.

Could any of you tell me why such a very fast pushing force of all background does not come from where we are pushing away?

So OneSimplePrinciple according to my model?

Essentially related to this observation.

Rethinking Cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform

https://www.esa.int/Science_Explorat...not_be_uniform

"The astronomers used X-ray temperature measurements of the extremely hot gas that pervades the clusters and compared the data with how bright the clusters appear in the sky. Clusters of the same temperature and located at a similar distance should appear similarly bright. But that is not what the astronomers observed.

“We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction,” says Thomas. “The difference was quite significant, around 30 per cent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky. ”

Before challenging the widely accepted Cosmology model, which provides the basis for estimating the cluster distances, Konstantinos and colleagues first looked at other possible explanations. Perhaps, there could be undetected gas or dust clouds obscuring the view and making clusters in a certain area appear dimmer. The data, however, do not support this scenario.

In some regions of space the distribution of clusters could be affected by bulk flows, large-scale motions of matter caused by the gravitational pull of extremely massive structures such as large cluster groups. This hypothesis, however, also seems unlikely. Konstantinos adds that the findings took the team by surprise. ""

How about at that can sannoo other than what I have said already many plans to.

Except that the expanding space is the emperor naked.

🤔

My video where i explain how universe working and moving "in" infinity 3 D space which is nothing.

https://youtu.be/A-45AqYtkFw

This video has a clear tip as to why the very very fast pushing force of the whole background doesn’t push right from where we’re pushing away.

🤔

It would be very interesting to know how this observation relates to the observation made in the opening.

"Detailed measurements made by the satellite have shown that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than those on the other.

Sean Carroll conceded that this might just be a coincidence, but pointed out that a natural explanation for this discrepancy would be if it represented a structure inherited from our universe's parent.

Meanwhile, Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

If the Caltech team's work is correct, we may already have the first information about what came before our own Universe."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

🤔

[Pixie of key]

With expanding energy fields of light, internal pressures of different magnitudes in different regions = explanation for the general redshift of light.

1. Expanding light has a lot of mass, but our devices can't register the expanding waves of the expanding light that are dark to us, which is the expanding thrust that all expanding nuclei of atoms circulate with one another.

2. We can study expanding light with the help of available photons.

3. Expanding photons are a very small part of the expanding light. They are like foam heads of waves of expanding light.

4. The wavy nature of the expanding light is projected by the available photons.

5. In the double gap test, send single photons and see where the waves of expanding light are transporting us.

6. For us, the dark waves of expanding lights interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion out of space into existing space.

7. The denser the individual expanding densities of the waves of the expanding light, the greater the internal pressure of the expanding energy field formed by the expanding light and the more widely expanding the energy field will diffuse / expand outward into existing space.

8. In a large "empty" space between galaxy clusters, the expanding energy field of the expanding light field is not as large as within the galaxy cluster.

9. Due to lower internal pressure, the rate of expanding light does not accelerate away from its own galaxy cluster as quickly as the rate of expanding light accelerates within the forward galaxy clusters.

10. When the old expanding light finally projects inside or past another expanding galaxy, the new, more energetic and slightly faster expanding light accelerates the old expanding light to its own, thus extending the old expanding light, that is, generally redshifting.

11. The more expansive light that has passed through / past the galaxy cluster, the more elongated or generally redshifted the expanding light.

Expanding light vs. expanding space.

1. Space does not radiate information. You can't try to manipulate space to get information about it. In other words, expanding space is a completely religious concept. Expanding space is emperor naked.

2. Light can be studied scientifically. If and when the lights expand and interact with each other, we can change the trajectory of the expanding light with billions of years of expanding light by conducting a scientific experiment.

Why do cosmologists believe in the existence of expanding space trapped in a hat even though they cannot scientifically prove its existence?!?

Expanding space is a concept similar to the gods of antiquity.

🤔

[Pixie of key]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

3 D "Big Bang" happened when expanding supermassive concentrations born about same time "faraway" from eachother.

Expanding galaxys born inside to outside when two expanding supermassive concentrations collide together.

https://youtu.be/A-45AqYtkFw

��

Expanding space is naked empire.

��

How did supermassive black holes get so big and chonky? Scientists still don't know.

https://www.space.com/how-supermassi...et-so-big.html

Well, i know.

Pulling force and curving space is naked emperors.

��

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

With expanding energy fields of light, internal pressures of different magnitudes in different regions = explanation for the general redshift of light.

1. Expanding light has a lot of mass, but our devices can't register the expanding waves of the expanding light that are dark to us, which is the expanding thrust that all expanding nuclei of atoms circulate with one another.

If we can't "register" it then it can't be "mass" since we can measure mass.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

2. We can study expanding light with the help of available photons.

3. Expanding photons are a very small part of the expanding light. They are like foam heads of waves of expanding light.

4. The wavy nature of the expanding light is projected by the available photons.

5. In the double gap test, send single photons and see where the waves of expanding light are transporting us.

Again single photon, electron and other double slit experiments have been done. You are free to glean whatever data you want from them.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

6. For us, the dark waves of expanding lights interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion out of space into existing space.

If they "interact with each other" then that interaction ain't simply "For us" but for and with themselves as well.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

7. The denser the individual expanding densities of the waves of the expanding light, the greater the internal pressure of the expanding energy field formed by the expanding light and the more widely expanding the energy field will diffuse / expand outward into existing space.

Since expansion reduces density that would mean your "expanding densities" would be decelerating in expansion not "accelerating each other's expansion" as you claimed before.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

8. In a large "empty" space between galaxy clusters, the expanding energy field of the expanding light field is not as large as within the galaxy cluster.

Since the "large "empty" space between galaxy clusters" is, well, lager than "the galaxy cluster" the "field of the expanding light field" there would likewise be larger. Perhaps you were trying to claim that the field there was not stronger or as strong "as within the galaxy cluster".

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

9. Due to lower internal pressure, the rate of expanding light does not accelerate away from its own galaxy cluster as quickly as the rate of expanding light accelerates within the forward galaxy clusters.

Remember #7? If "its own galaxy cluster" is where its expansion originated then it has to be "denser" there. Unless you are now claiming some recompression of your expanding light.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

10. When the old expanding light finally projects inside or past another expanding galaxy, the new, more energetic and slightly faster expanding light accelerates the old expanding light to its own, thus extending the old expanding light, that is, generally redshifting.

See you just claimed here that your "expanding light" has to be "more energetic and slightly faster expanding" in its galaxy of origin.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

11. The more expansive light that has passed through / past the galaxy cluster, the more elongated or generally redshifted the expanding light.

If that were the case then red-shift would depend upon how many other galaxies the light "passed through /" or went "past" and not just on distance.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding light vs. expanding space.

1. Space does not radiate information. You can't try to manipulate space to get information about it. In other words, expanding space is a completely religious concept. Expanding space is emperor naked.

No theory of expanding space, that I'm aware of requires said space to "radiate information". If for some reason you simply require expanding space to "radiate information" then that is simply and only your problem.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

2. Light can be studied scientifically. If and when the lights expand and interact with each other, we can change the trajectory of the expanding light with billions of years of expanding light by conducting a scientific experiment.

Light is "studied scientifically" and has been for centuries with no evidence of it "expanding" as you suggest.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Why do cosmologists believe in the existence of expanding space trapped in a hat even though they cannot scientifically prove its existence?!?

Because observational evidence support the claim.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding space is a concept similar to the gods of antiquity.

��

Nope, see above.

[Pixie of key]

Light is "studied scientifically" and has been for centuries with no evidence of it "expanding" as you suggest."

There is lot of evidence that lights expanding and interactive with eachother.

No evidence for expanding space!!!

��

You dont understand that Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling dark expanding pushing force which have example nature of expanding light.

Expanding light waves is dark for us, but we know, there is waves because we can register photons.

But almost all expanding light mass is in dark expanding waves.

Expanding lights interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster and faster. So expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

��

So, Dark Expanding light waves interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster. Thats why expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

Explanation for

1. Bending light near star and galaxy

2. Cosmologys way redshifted light

3. Gravity redshifted light

4. Douple slit experiement

5. Reason why all lights moving with same speed.

So, there is no expanding space!

No curving space!

Space is infinity 3 D place which is nothing.

��

[Pixie of key]

How expanding Black Star interactive with expanding Star.

https://youtu.be/1FJJXjcuG5k

��

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Light is "studied scientifically" and has been for centuries with no evidence of it "expanding" as you suggest."

There is lot of evidence that lights expanding and interactive with eachother.

Great present such evidence and not simply your assumptions or assertions.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

No evidence for expanding space!!!

��

You have been given the evidence multiple times.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

You dont understand that Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling dark expanding pushing force which have example nature of expanding light.

There is no evidence of "Nucleus of atoms expanding".

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding light waves is dark for us, but we know, there is waves because we can register photons.

Simply "waves" is not evidence of "Expanding light waves". If said "Expanding light waves is dark for us" then we would not be able to "register" it even as "photons". Particularly since a photon is a highly localized wave packet.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

But almost all expanding light mass is in dark expanding waves.

Trying to assert your claims as being imperceptible doesn't actually help your claims and only asserts that they can have no evidence.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Expanding lights interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster and faster. So expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

��


So, Dark Expanding light waves interactive with eachother and get eachother expanding faster. Thats why expanding light moving faster and faster same way what matter and light expanding.

Again, there is no evidence of "light moving faster and faster" or of "matter" "expanding".

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Explanation for

1. Bending light near star and galaxy

Nope, expansion would make it spread not simply bend.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

2. Cosmologys way redshifted light

Nope, as already noted before there would be a dependence on the number objects passed and not just on distance.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

3. Gravity redshifted light

As asserted "Gravity redshifted" is explained by, well, gravity.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

4. Douple slit experiement

Nope, the localized interaction of the wave packet with the receiving device is explicitly not expansion and why its commonly refereed to as a collapse of the wave function.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

5. Reason why all lights moving with same speed.

You just said "So expanding light moving faster and faster.." so it explicitly can't be, just by your own assertions, the "same speed". Do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

So, there is no expanding space!

No curving space!

Your inability to be generally consistent or even just self-consistent only refutes your own claims. Including your claims of "there is no expanding space" and "No curving space".

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Space is infinity 3 D place which is nothing.

��

If it is "nothing" then it isn't a "place". A place is at least a location. Also, as you have been informed before, space has electromagnetic properties. So again you are simply inconsistent with yourself and inconsistent with observational evidence.


So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet as described?


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?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
An insane lie and video. The expanding universe is not any "Expanding galaxys" formation gibberish.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
His usual lies and insanity. He cite=yet again an article about measuring the expansion of the universe. He delusion is that the universe is not expanding so it is insane to cite that article.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
A spate of his usual insanely ignorant gibberish.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
Usual insane delusions.
Pulling forces exist. There is overwhelming physical evidence that spacetime is curved (GR works!). He cites an article about the black holes which are predicted by GR.

He lies about the article as usual.
How did supermassive black holes get so big and chonky? Scientists still don't know. is that scientists do know how supermassive black holes formed. The question is how they grow to the masses we see today. A theory is that they just gorged on infalling matter during the early universe. If so, active galaxies a long way from us should be common. The paper says they only found 5. If confirmed, active galaxies in the early universe are not common.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

Light is "studied scientifically" and has been for centuries with no evidence of it "expanding" as you suggest."
...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
Quotes The Man's post and then repeats his insane "No evidence for expanding space" lie and his delusions.
He has been presented the physical evidence for an expanding universe many times over the years.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
Big Bang

He has cited evidence for the Big Bang many times over the years, e.g. Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform !

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Pixie of key

...

The same gibberish, ignorance, delusions and lies about science in this 11 year old Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark? thread
Insane gibberish and insane "No black hole. This is how expanding black star interactive with expanding star "video.

There are no "black stars". Stars emit light by definition. They are hot. Hot things emit light as children know !
The video is his usual insane "No curving space, no expanding space, no pulling force, expanding black star" lies and delusions. The usual insanity of cartoons where he draws his delusions.