IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th January 2023, 07:51 AM   #1201
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
You have predicted extreme weather somewhere in the world, and, surprise, there has been extreme weather somewhere in the world!

You are unsurpassed in your incredible abilities to predict! You are our new god! Meteorologists the world over will pay you a fortune to hear your predictions!
Yes 🙂

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 05:18 AM   #1202
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Savorinen predicts extreme weather phenomena on Earth at the beginning of 2023. Google: Savorinen

https://youtu.be/iPgOPOTIN-E

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 07:07 AM   #1203
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,652
Savorinen predicts extreme weather phenomena on Earth in the middle of 2023!

Savorinen predicts extreme weather phenomena on Earth at the end of 2023!

Savorinen predicts extreme weather phenomena on Earth at the beginning of 2024!

And so on.

Amazing powers that you have …
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 07:23 AM   #1204
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
expanding electromagnetic radiation moves and expands outward in space into already existing space.

If it moves, it moves in space and then it is not space.

Adults really. What is so difficult to understand here.

I don't understand why you don't understand the obvious.

Ridiculous hustle.
We do understand. What you evidently don't, or don't want to, understand is that not only are your assertions inconsistent with observational data they are simply inconsistent with just themselves.

Heck, you certainly don't understand your own citations, how things (like science, ropes, interferometers, falling apples, ect... ect) actually work or how your notions could even possibly work.



Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
��

You would even try.

If it's moving, whatever it is, it's moving in space and then it's not space.

You move and change in space.

Do you understand that you are not space?

If so, why on earth would some radiation moving in space be space?

Hello cardboard, WAKE UP!

��
Who the heck said that they or anyone were "space"? Who the heck said "some radiation moving in space" was space? That spacetime has to have, and does measurably have, at least some electromagnetic properties in order for electromagnetic radiation just to propagate isn't a claim that such radiation is "space". By all means, please, wake yourself up and if you are going to try to present your own arguments as someone else's, at least have the courtesy to try to make better arguments than you would normally.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 15th January 2023 at 07:24 AM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 11:06 AM   #1205
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
We do understand. What you evidently don't, or don't want to, understand is that not only are your assertions inconsistent with observational data they are simply inconsistent with just themselves.

Heck, you certainly don't understand your own citations, how things (like science, ropes, interferometers, falling apples, ect... ect) actually work or how your notions could even possibly work.





Who the heck said that they or anyone were "space"? Who the heck said "some radiation moving in space" was space? That spacetime has to have, and does measurably have, at least some electromagnetic properties in order for electromagnetic radiation just to propagate isn't a claim that such radiation is "space". By all means, please, wake yourself up and if you are going to try to present your own arguments as someone else's, at least have the courtesy to try to make better arguments than you would normally.
You write

"Yet we, and you, can easily measure other intrinsic physical properties of space. Again, if you couldn't, electromagnetic radiation couldn't, well, radiate. Counter to your assertion that space is nothing. Your notions just don't agree with easily verifiable observational evidence."

That's wrong.

Electromagnetic radiation is not a property of space.

Space is an infinite 3D place which IS absolutely nothing.

Electromagnetic radiation moves in space.

It is not a property of space.

It is not related to space in any other way than that it just moves in space.

The fish moves in the water.

Fish and water are in space, they move in space.

Fish have properties.

Water has properties.

Space itself has no such properties.

Space IS nothing at all.

It is only a 3D scene / place that has no features that would affect the events taking place in space.

Electromagnetic radiation moving in space has properties like fish and water moving in space have properties that affect things that happen in space.

You too move and change in space all the time.

Space does not move.

Space does not change.

Space does not affect anything in any way.

Pisces / fish affects things.

Water affects things.

Electromagnetic radiation affects things.

Space doesn't affect things!!!!

This was now for me regarding this here.

If you can't understand, I can't help you.

Maybe the truth is just too much for you now.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2023, 01:18 PM   #1206
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
You write

"Yet we, and you, can easily measure other intrinsic physical properties of space. Again, if you couldn't, electromagnetic radiation couldn't, well, radiate. Counter to your assertion that space is nothing. Your notions just don't agree with easily verifiable observational evidence."

That's wrong.

Electromagnetic radiation is not a property of space.
Again no one claimed "Electromagnetic radiation" was "a property of space". Even your strawman arguments lack just the strength of straw.

Again permittivity, permeability and impedance are some of the measurable properties of space.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Space is an infinite 3D place which IS absolutely nothing.

Electromagnetic radiation moves in space.

It is not a property of space.
Yet spacetime has measurable physical properties, Again no one has even claimed electromagnetic radiation is a property of space. Again try addressing the arguments made rather than ones you made up.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It is not related to space in any other way than that it just moves in space.
Again without at least some electromagnetic properties of space such radiation couldn't move trough space.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
The fish moves in the water.

Fish and water are in space, they move in space.

Fish have properties.

Water has properties.
One of those properties of a fish is that they are about 80% water.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Space itself has no such properties.

Space IS nothing at all.
You can measure them yourself, which again just means your notions are inconsistent with observational data.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It is only a 3D scene / place that has no features that would affect the events taking place in space.

Electromagnetic radiation moving in space has properties like fish and water moving in space have properties that affect things that happen in space.

You too move and change in space all the time.

Space does not move.

Space does not change.

Space does not affect anything in any way.

Pisces / fish affects things.

Water affects things.

Electromagnetic radiation affects things.

Space doesn't affect things!!!!

This was now for me regarding this here.

If you can't understand, I can't help you.

Maybe the truth is just too much for you now.

🙂
No one asked for you to help them, while you seem to expect people to have some obligation to help you. Since your notions don't agree with observational evidence you're the only one having problems with the truth. Heck, I doubt you even know what those properties of permittivity, permeability and impedance represent.

How's that rope experiment coming?

Have you figured out what expansion and pushing rates you need to explain just a falling apple?

Have you figured out why your notions are inconsistent with the data from the detection of gravitational waves?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 05:01 AM   #1207
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Again no one claimed "Electromagnetic radiation" was "a property of space". Even your strawman arguments lack just the strength of straw.

Again permittivity, permeability and impedance are some of the measurable properties of space.



Yet spacetime has measurable physical properties, Again no one has even claimed electromagnetic radiation is a property of space. Again try addressing the arguments made rather than ones you made up.



Again without at least some electromagnetic properties of space such radiation couldn't move trough space.



One of those properties of a fish is that they are about 80% water.



You can measure them yourself, which again just means your notions are inconsistent with observational data.



No one asked for you to help them, while you seem to expect people to have some obligation to help you. Since your notions don't agree with observational evidence you're the only one having problems with the truth. Heck, I doubt you even know what those properties of permittivity, permeability and impedance represent.

How's that rope experiment coming?

Have you figured out what expansion and pushing rates you need to explain just a falling apple?

Have you figured out why your notions are inconsistent with the data from the detection of gravitational waves?
Wrong.

You think it is like that.

It's not like that

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2023, 01:46 PM   #1208
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Wrong.

You think it is like that.

It's not like that

🙂
What either of us think is irrelevant, what matters is what's consistent with the observational evidence. So far current science is demonstrably consistent with observational evidence (all the technology you use today). While your notions however, evidently not. Still, you continue to fail to give sufficient details to really compare to observational evidence. When you do try to give the little input you do, it is generally unsupported (like your citations that don't support the assertions you post with them), generally inconsistent (like your attempts at explanations that just don't fit the observational evidence) or self-inconsistent (like when you waffle back and forth between your expansion being directly detectable and not directly detectable as well as it being accelerated yet the same rate, or just 'proportional' without saying what it is proportional to or in what proportion that is, which again would not make it at the same rate). It seems you just don't know enough about the 'everything is expanding' notion to be of any use to it.

So I'll ask again, what is it exactly that you think you have done to advance or even just support this notion that is at least 25 years old?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 12:49 AM   #1209
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What either of us think is irrelevant, what matters is what's consistent with the observational evidence. So far current science is demonstrably consistent with observational evidence (all the technology you use today). While your notions however, evidently not. Still, you continue to fail to give sufficient details to really compare to observational evidence. When you do try to give the little input you do, it is generally unsupported (like your citations that don't support the assertions you post with them), generally inconsistent (like your attempts at explanations that just don't fit the observational evidence) or self-inconsistent (like when you waffle back and forth between your expansion being directly detectable and not directly detectable as well as it being accelerated yet the same rate, or just 'proportional' without saying what it is proportional to or in what proportion that is, which again would not make it at the same rate). It seems you just don't know enough about the 'everything is expanding' notion to be of any use to it.

So I'll ask again, what is it exactly that you think you have done to advance or even just support this notion that is at least 25 years old?
Are you saying that someone somewhere proposed that atomic nuclei expand and circulate the expanding dark repulsive force with all other expanding atomic nuclei over 25 years ago?

If so, please tell me who and where would have presented this.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 10:51 AM   #1210
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Are you saying that someone somewhere proposed that atomic nuclei expand and circulate the expanding dark repulsive force with all other expanding atomic nuclei over 25 years ago?


��
Well, any 'everything's expanding' assertion would require that "atomic nuclei expand". As well as electron orbitals that you don't seem to even mention. Your "circulate the expanding dark repulsive force with all other expanding atomic nuclei" is just your lame attempt to explain why we don't directly observe that 'everything's expanding'. Again something any 'everything's expanding' assertions would require because, well, we just don't find that 'everything's expanding'. So that's it? That's what you feel you've contributed, just a bit of terminology that expresses the same type of thing any assertion that 'everything's expanding' would require?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

If so, please tell me who and where would have presented this.
Well after 25 years I can hardly be expected to recall where I first encountered such assertions. Though we've had a couple of proponents here on this forum some years ago. I seem to recall both having 'light' in their user names but could be mistaken.

Evidently you seem to feel that just your particular turn of phrasing is some kind of contribution or advancement without evidently understanding any assertion that 'everything's expanding' needs some such turn of phrase accounting for why we don't observe that 'everything's expanding'. Again, you don't even seem to understand such notions as you assert.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 17th January 2023 at 10:52 AM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 03:01 PM   #1211
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Well, any 'everything's expanding' assertion would require that "atomic nuclei expand". As well as electron orbitals that you don't seem to even mention. Your "circulate the expanding dark repulsive force with all other expanding atomic nuclei" is just your lame attempt to explain why we don't directly observe that 'everything's expanding'. Again something any 'everything's expanding' assertions would require because, well, we just don't find that 'everything's expanding'. So that's it? That's what you feel you've contributed, just a bit of terminology that expresses the same type of thing any assertion that 'everything's expanding' would require?



Well after 25 years I can hardly be expected to recall where I first encountered such assertions. Though we've had a couple of proponents here on this forum some years ago. I seem to recall both having 'light' in their user names but could be mistaken.

Evidently you seem to feel that just your particular turn of phrasing is some kind of contribution or advancement without evidently understanding any assertion that 'everything's expanding' needs some such turn of phrase accounting for why we don't observe that 'everything's expanding'. Again, you don't even seem to understand such notions as you assert.
That is, no one before me has made the claim that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate the expanding dark energy / pushing force that creates registrable electrons and photons that also expand.

That is, everything in the visible universe that is expanding in space basically consists of energy / pushing force that is constantly spreading outwards in space into the already existing space to a larger and larger area of space.

And no one else before me has said that the expanding supermassive objects of the centers of galaxies were first born in their own 3D big bangs.

So that when these supermassive objects expanding in space later passed close to each other, a lot of new stars expanding in space were born/combined quickly from the expanding condensations of dark matter protruding from them without any kind of pulling forces and without the ever-curving space.

Alright.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2023, 04:28 PM   #1212
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
That is, no one before me has made the claim that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate the expanding dark energy / pushing force that creates registrable electrons and photons that also expand.
Again, all 'everything is expanding' notions have to do that. I see you've now added "creates registrable electrons and photons that also expand" that would also be required. Glad I could help. The only things unique to you is not considering pulling forces, which is demonstrably false and has nothing to do with the notion that 'everything is expanding' as well as your particular choice of terminology for why we don't notice that 'everything is expanding' (your "circulate the expanding dark energy / pushing force"). So a bit of techno-babel (more babel then techno) and a demonstrably false assertion is again all you are claiming. Heck, you even demonstrated that you know it is false, in your video, by pushing without the rope fully extended.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
That is, everything in the visible universe that is expanding in space basically consists of energy / pushing force that is constantly spreading outwards in space into the already existing space to a larger and larger area of space.
Sure, 'everything is expanding' means, well, 'everything is expanding'. Being verbose about it isn't uniquely yours either.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
And no one else before me has said that the expanding supermassive objects of the centers of galaxies were first born in their own 3D big bangs.
Just like none that I recall have said there are only pushing forces. Which like your 'born from the inside' claims have nothing to do with the assertion that 'everything is expanding'.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So that when these supermassive objects expanding in space later passed close to each other, a lot of new stars expanding in space were born/combined quickly from the expanding condensations of dark matter protruding from them without any kind of pulling forces and without the ever-curving space.

Alright.

🙂
A lack of, and particular distain for, curved space is, I have found, a common theme in shuch 'everything is expanding' notions. It's almost a fundamental aspect that the notion that 'everything is expanding' is suppose to supplant curved spacetime as the reason for gravitational attraction.

Again you do have a couple of unique aspects in your notions like no pulling forces and that some things are born 'inside to out'. Neither of which has any relevance to the assertion that 'everything is expanding'. Neither are mutually exclusive to nor mutually dependent upon such an assertion. So they just don't matter to an assertion that 'everything is expanding'. Again this just leaves you with a particular turn of phrase ("circulate the expanding dark energy / pushing force") that any such notion requires of some sort or another to account for why we don't detect the claimed expansion.

Again your additional superfluous nonsense and demonstrably false claims makes this the worst presentation of an 'everything is expanding' notion I have ever encountered.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2023, 12:52 PM   #1213
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Let's read what the sound of the word offers Paul Sutter, the so-called an expert on this question, i.e. where the universe is expanding.

What Is Our Universe Expanding Into?
One question for Paul Sutter, a Theoretical cosmologist at Stony Brook University.

What Is Our Universe Expanding Into?



"The universe doesn't expand into anything or from anywhere. The universe expands from itself and into itself. And I know that’s very hard to visualize, but thankfully, we have these powerful tools like Mathematics that allow us to grapple with techniques that even we can’t imagine.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

It's a complete mess of words.

Hand waving.

Mind-bending tricks.

Hooray!!!

"We have a North Pole. We have a South Pole. But those are arbitrary. You can put those wherever you want. And imagine our Earth was getting bigger and we were to measure the distance between New York and Paris, and then every year that distance is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. There's no center, no edge. And yet the distance between any two points still grows. This is very easy to visualize in two dimensions. We live in a three-dimensional universe. I can't imagine it. I can't think of it. I can think of the analogies in two dimensions, and I can trust the Mathematics to take me into three dimensions.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

It is worth noting that the Earth consists of separate atomic nuclei that move relative to each other in 3D space.

It enables the Earth to expand in space outward into the already existing space.

Man can perceive and understand the expansion of the globe outward into the already existing space. A person can describe it in words and visually.

If you claim that The universe expands from itself and into itself, then you are talking about a completely religious expansion. Something that cannot be studied scientifically in any way. This should always be mentioned if someone believes that this is the truth.

🤔

People are fooled by these two-dimensional universes.

An image is created that a two-dimensional being cannot understand the third spatial dimension, etc.

The example would work very well if two-dimensional beings really existed.

If only in such a way that we could study them scientifically and show that they do not understand the third spatial dimension.

Then we could consider the option that there would be additional spatial dimensions that we ourselves do not understand.

What makes that thought reversal trick stupid is that we three-dimensional people understand very easily the fact that two-dimensional beings do not exist, and cannot exist.

If you take away the thickness from something three-dimensional, there is nothing left. And this is a FACT!!!!

Does anyone think they understand what kind of brain a two-dimensional creature has 🙂

Yes, you really can't understand anything with a brain like that.

They do not exist and cannot exist.

If a being is extremely thin, it is still three-dimensional and it lives in a three-dimensional universe.

If it doesn't have thickness, it doesn't have anything else. No width, no height.

So, physically concretely like this.

And this is a mathematical fact.

Observations should not be explained using space. It's a loser's business. Einstein opened the Pandora's box of physics when he grabbed the concept of curved space out of his hat.

Curved space is the naked emperor.

Actually, the lights expanding in space interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding lights accelerates in the same proportion as the matter and the lights expand.

And this has already been scientifically proven.

And you would also accept it if Einstein hadn't pulled a new god out of his hat and named it curved space.

Now, however, you believe in the existence of that god, the curved space. And Einstein is to blame for this. And you yourself.

Let's think that Einstein would have presented the same thing as me, i.e. that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate a dark expanding pushing force which has e.g. nature of expanding light.

He would have said that the electrons and photons that can be registered are created from this dark energy dispersing/expanding into space, so that electrons and photons also expand because they consist of this energy dispersing/expanding into space.

He would have said that, for example, the trajectory of the expanding light pushing past the Sun bends towards the Sun, because the light that has expanded for billions of years in space, which is also pushed towards the Sun, contains a pushing force that pushes the expanding photons pushing past the expanding Sun towards the expanding Sun.

Einstein would have predicted that during a solar eclipse this could be proven by observing the stars in the background of the Sun whose location is known.

And then it would have been scientifically proven.

And no one ever anywhere after that would have thought of making an idiotic claim about the hokkus pokkus space which always curves, expands, undulates, twists, stretches and bangs according to what is needed to explain some observation.

Only losers explain observations with space, because they are unable to explain observations with the help of systems that move in space and change in space.

Hokkus pokkus space is easy to give properties with which hokkus pokkus space always does this and that according to what needs to be explained at any time without actually explaining anything at all.

Expanding space is the naked emperor

Expanding space is a hoot

Curved space is a hoot

The undulating space is a hoot

Rotating space is a hoot

None of these hokkus pokkus spaces are needed.

It is enough that the lights consist for the most part of dark expanding waves which, when interacting with each other, accelerate each other's expansion and thus cause each other's speed to accelerate in the same proportion as matter and light expand.

When you understand and grasp this, you realize that there is no need for such haphazard spaces.

At the same time, many things that have remained mysteries until now are explained without inexplicable dark matter, dark energies, pulling forces, etc.

As well as

1. The cosmological redshift of light

2. The so-called gravitational lens effect

3. The so-called gravitational redshift

4. Double slit test

5. How lights always know how to move at the speed characteristic of light.

😃

.

Read more about how the universe really works 🙂

I have found out how the universe works 😃

https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/juk...-%f0%9f%98%83/

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2023, 12:53 PM   #1214
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
What Is Our Universe Expanding Into?
One question for Paul Sutter, a theoretical cosmologist at Stony Brook University.

https://nautil.us/what-is-our-univer...g-into-258168/

��������
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2023, 01:40 PM   #1215
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,652
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
What Is Our Universe Expanding Into?

Category fail.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2023, 04:42 PM   #1216
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
”The universe doesn’t expand into anything or from anywhere. The universe expands from itself and into itself."

https://nautil.us/what-is-our-univer...g-into-258168/

I've always jokingly asked if the expanding space expands from the inside to the inside 🙂

This is just so funny.

If you want to start the day with good laughs, all you have to do is read a little of these declarations by the high priests of the big bang religious sect 🙂

I recommend it to everyone 🙂

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 12:08 AM   #1217
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
Posts: 2,603
Here's something just as funny from the same article.

"And imagine our Earth was getting bigger and we were to measure the distance between New York and Paris, and then every year that distance is getting bigger and bigger and bigger."

Since that isn't happening, your idea is wrong.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 01:45 AM   #1218
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Here's something just as funny from the same article.

"And imagine our Earth was getting bigger and we were to measure the distance between New York and Paris, and then every year that distance is getting bigger and bigger and bigger."

Since that isn't happening, your idea is wrong.
You measure how much the expanding Earth's circumference grows with a tape measure that also consists of expanding atomic nuclei that circulate the expanding dark pushing force with all the expanding atomic nuclei of the expanding Earth?

Do you think that you can find out how much the expanding Earth expands in a certain time?

If so, why do you think so?

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 01:56 AM   #1219
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,652
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
You measure how much the expanding Earth's circumference grows with a tape measure that also consists of expanding atomic nuclei that circulate the expanding dark pushing force with all the expanding atomic nuclei of the expanding Earth?

Are you saying that the expanding Earth cannot be falsified?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 04:09 AM   #1220
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Are you saying that the expanding Earth cannot be falsified?

I will not tell. This is because these atomic nuclei expanding in space can be studied scientifically.

Their expansion can be tried to accelerate with the help of a scientific experiment.

This has already been done several times.

Have you heard of atomic bombs?

But yeah, have you thought about how to falsify expanding space?

How would you try to make expanding space expand faster?

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 10:19 AM   #1221
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
🙂

Savorinen with Heraclitus’s dogma ”From all things One.”


Physics is in crisis. Quantum Cosmology can save it and point us towards the theory of everything
"Once quantum mechanics is applied to the entire cosmos, it uncovers a three-thousand-year-old idea."
.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/physic...of-everything/
.
"But quantum mechanics changes everything. In quantum systems, objects get so completely and entirely merged that it is impossible to say anything at all about the properties of their constituents anymore. This phenomenon is known as "entanglement," and while it was pointed out by Albert Einstein and collaborators some eighty years ago, it is only now getting fully appreciated. Apply entanglement to the entire universe and you end up with Heraclitus's dogma "From all things One."

“Hold on,” you may object. "Quantum Mechanics applies only to tiny things: atoms, elementary particles, maybe molecules. Applying it to the universe doesn't make sense.” You will be surprised to learn that there are increasingly many good hints that this conviction is wrong. Between 1996 and 2016 alone, six Nobel Prizes were awarded for so-called macroscopic quantum phenomena. Quantum Mechanics seems to apply universally, a finding whose consequences are just starting to be explored.

You may throw up your hands and protest that such a discussion is pointless. Physics seems to work just fine without any such metaphysical pondering. Fact is, it doesn't. At present, Physics is facing a crisis that forces us to reconsider what we understand as "fundamental" in the first place. Right now, the most brilliant particle physicists and cosmologists are alienated by experimental findings of extremely unlikely coincidences that so far defy any explanation. At the same time, the quest for a theory of everything is bereaving Physics of its foundational concepts, such as matter, space, and time. If these are gone, what remains?”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

"Physics seems to work just fine without any such metaphysical pondering. Fact is, it doesn't. At present, Physics is facing a crisis that forces us to reconsider what we understand as "fundamental" in the first place."

🤔

That's right 🙂

GOOD 🙂

Time to face the truth 🙂

🤔

"we almost always adopt quantum mechanics to describe specific observations and experiments, we usually don't apply it to the entire universe. This has a mind-boggling consequence. As I will argue in this book, once quantum mechanics is applied to the entire cosmos, it uncovers a three-thousand-year-old idea: that underlying everything we experience there is only one single, all-encompassing thing—that everything else we see around us is some kind of illusion.

Admittedly, the claim that "all is One" doesn't sound like an ingenious scientific concept. At a first glance, it sounds absurd.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

With the help of the current atomic model, you cannot create a theory of everything in physics 🙂

Physicists have to accept the fact that everything basically consists of one and the same physically concretely existing thing, which is naturally already a pushing force in itself.

By existing, a density consisting of this physically concretely existing thing, i.e. a system in which this physically concretely existing thing is denser than outside that system, takes its own space from the infinite 3D space.

In its place relative to the environment, another similar density cannot be pushed, if it is not first pushed away from that point relative to the environment.

This way we can understand that it itself consists of something physically concrete to which a pushing force can be applied, so that it itself applies to its environment what it is made of, i.e. a pushing force.

When you understand that this one thing, of which everything basically consists, is already a pushing force in itself, you also understand that there is nothing that is a pulling force.

It's all about which direction to push more and which direction to push less.

Thus, everything tends to push towards where it is least pushed away from.

When we are on the surface of the expanding Earth, by pushing us, we are pushed upwards, that is, away from the center of the expanding Earth. As the Earth expands and we ourselves expand in infinite 3D space outwards into already existing space.

Of course, the separate expanding densifications of our expanding atomic cores are also pushed toward the center of the expanding Earth.

So it is not easy for us to escape the surface of the expanding Earth.

For that, we need a space-expanding rocket whose space-expanding fuel we can make expand faster than normal in space outward into the already existing space.

That's enough explosive/expanding thrust in space to push the expanding rocket away from the center of the expanding Earth faster than the surface of the expanding Earth pushes away from the center of the expanding Earth.

The first premise that physicists have to understand and accept is that quarks and of course also photons have density and volume. Internal structure. Internal motion / time.

Internal PRESSURE. And that internal pressure causes the matter / energy / pushing force in the quarks and photons to spread outward in space into the already existing space.

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Observations should not be explained using space. It's a loser's business. Einstein opened the Pandora's box of physics when he grabbed the concept of curved space out of his hat.

Curved space is the naked emperor.

The lights expanding in space interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding lights accelerates in the same proportion as the matter and the lights expand.

And this has already been scientifically proven.

And you would also accept it if Einstein hadn't pulled a new god out of his hat and named it curved space.

Now, however, you believe in the existence of that god, the curved space. And Einstein is to blame for this. And you yourself.

Let's think that Einstein would have presented the same thing as me, i.e. that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate a dark expanding pushing force which has e.g. nature of expanding light.

He would have said that the electrons and photons that can be registered are created from this dark energy that disperses/expands into space, so that electrons and photons also expand, because they consist of this energy that disperses/expands into space, which therefore has an internal pressure that causes it to disperse all the time in space to a larger and larger area of space .

He would have said that, for example, the trajectory of the expanding light pushing past the Sun bends towards the Sun, because the light expanded in space for billions of years, which is also pushed towards the Sun, contains a pushing force that pushes the photons pushing past the Sun towards the Sun.

Einstein would have predicted that during a solar eclipse this could be proven by observing the stars in the background of the Sun whose location is known.

And then it would have been scientifically proven.

And no one ever anywhere after that would have thought of making an idiotic claim about the hokkus pokkus space which always curves, expands, undulates, twists, stretches and bangs according to what is needed to explain some observation.

Only losers explain observations with space, because they are unable to explain observations with the help of systems that move in space and change in space.

Hokkus pokkus space is easy to give properties with which hokkus pokkus space always does this and that according to what needs to be explained at any time without actually explaining anything at all.

Expanding space is the naked emperor

😃

Expanding space is a hoot

Curved space is a hoot

The undulating space is a hoot

Rotating space is a hoot

None of these hokkus pokkus spaces are needed.

It is enough that the lights consist for the most part of dark expanding waves which, when interacting with each other, accelerate each other's expansion and thus cause each other's speed to accelerate in the same proportion as matter and light expand.

When you understand and grasp this, you realize that there is no need for such haphazard spaces.

At the same time, many things that have remained mysteries until now are explained without inexplicable dark matter, dark energies, pulling forces, etc.

As well as

1. The cosmological redshift of light

2. The so-called gravitational lens effect

3. The so-called gravitational redshift

4. Double slit test

5. How lights always know how to move at the speed characteristic of light.

😃

.

Read more about how the universe really works 🙂

I have found out how the universe works 😃

https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/juk...-%f0%9f%98%83/

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2023, 03:07 PM   #1222
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Слава Україні
Posts: 11,379
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
I will not tell. This is because these atomic nuclei expanding in space can be studied scientifically.

Their expansion can be tried to accelerate with the help of a scientific experiment.

This has already been done several times.

Have you heard of atomic bombs?

But yeah, have you thought about how to falsify expanding space?

How would you try to make expanding space expand faster?

🙂
The mangled english doesn't detract from the fact you're dodging the question. It's a simple yes or no question.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 12:43 AM   #1223
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
The mangled english doesn't detract from the fact you're dodging the question. It's a simple yes or no question.
Have you thought about how to falsify expanding space?

How would you try to make expanding space expand faster?

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 01:02 AM   #1224
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
The mangled english doesn't detract from the fact you're dodging the question. It's a simple yes or no question.
Yes, question was, "are you saying"

My answer was, No, I am not saying.

"I will not tell."

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 03:27 AM   #1225
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,652
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
My answer was, No, I am not saying.

"I will not tell."
This either means that you can’t, or you know that such an experiment will indeed falsify your nonsense.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 09:15 AM   #1226
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Have you thought about how to falsify expanding space?
Sure, same way as anything. If observational evidence doesn't fit the calculations of the model.

Have you thought about what assertions of yours don't fit the observational evidence?


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
How would you try to make expanding space expand faster?

🙂
Mustly by having more empty space. So one would look at regions of vast empty space and see if the bound systems moving away around them are doing so in a way consistent with the models.

Also just expanding and contracting space-time in accordance with the projections of GR again help bolster the reliability of the model. Something observing gravitational wave does or some of the other experiments linked pages ago might do.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 11:43 AM   #1227
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
This either means that you can’t, or you know that such an experiment will indeed falsify your nonsense.

Does it seem like you're a troll?

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 11:49 AM   #1228
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Sure, same way as anything. If observational evidence doesn't fit the calculations of the model.

Have you thought about what assertions of yours don't fit the observational evidence?




Mustly by having more empty space. So one would look at regions of vast empty space and see if the bound systems moving away around them are doing so in a way consistent with the models.

Also just expanding and contracting space-time in accordance with the projections of GR again help bolster the reliability of the model. Something observing gravitational wave does or some of the other experiments linked pages ago might do.

How did you plan to do it?

Do you have empty space in a warehouse?

Do you grab hold of empty space with a repulsive force and move it to the region between galaxy clusters?

Should you make room for that empty space to fit it in?

So, should you tear up the empty space in such a way that you could make the empty space you took from the warehouse fit between the already existing empty spaces?

How about where would your extra free space move when you move it from your storage to where you want more free space?

🤔
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 03:50 PM   #1229
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
🙂

[unrelated citation snipped]
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
With the help of the current atomic model, you cannot create a theory of everything in physics 🙂
How would you know? Do you even know what "the current atomic model" is?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Physicists have to accept the fact that everything basically consists of one and the same physically concretely existing thing, which is naturally already a pushing force in itself.
Why would "Physicists have to accept" something even you demonstrated as false with just a string?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
By existing, a density consisting of this physically concretely existing thing, i.e. a system in which this physically concretely existing thing is denser than outside that system, takes its own space from the infinite 3D space.
Density of things can vary and what is inside something by no means needs to be denser than something outside it. Your just stringing words together without any, well, concrete meaning.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
In its place relative to the environment, another similar density cannot be pushed, if it is not first pushed away from that point relative to the environment.
Well if one of your always expanding densities "cannot be pushed" the thier surfaceces would be expanding towards each other.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
This way we can understand that it itself consists of something physically concrete to which a pushing force can be applied, so that it itself applies to its environment what it is made of, i.e. a pushing force.
Things aren't "made of" forces "pushing" or otherwise. Forces are vectors having magnitude and direction. Your assertion above is self-inconsistent. First "it itself consists of something physically concrete to which a pushing force can be applied" then "it itself" "is made of, i.e. a pushing force" that "applies to its environment".


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
When you understand that this one thing, of which everything basically consists, is already a pushing force in itself, you also understand that there is nothing that is a pulling force.
Again, trivially and demonstrably (by you) false. Material are stressed and strained differently by pulling (extending) forces then they are by pushing (compressing) forces

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It's all about which direction to push more and which direction to push less.

Thus, everything tends to push towards where it is least pushed away from.
That would be an unbalanced force that would make something move and still be compressed (negative stress and strain) and would not positively (extend) stress or strain. Pushing is directed towards the object while pulling is directed away from it. While in a free body diagram forces can be moved around on a body without consequence, because one isn’t concerned about internal stress and strain. That is not the case for mechanics of materials where internal stresses and strain are determined by the magnitude, direction and specific location of applied forces.

We find nether your unbalanced pushing forces nor the stress and strain they would produce in material objects.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
When we are on the surface of the expanding Earth, by pushing us, we are pushed upwards, that is, away from the center of the expanding Earth. As the Earth expands and we ourselves expand in infinite 3D space outwards into already existing space.
Since not everything is on the surface of the earth and still must be pushed away to the same degree, actually being “on the surface of the expanding Earth” isn’t even relevant.
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Of course, the separate expanding densifications of our expanding atomic cores are also pushed toward the center of the expanding Earth.
Well, here you are self-inconsistent again with ‘pushed away’ and ‘pushed towards’ either one is greater than the other so only the difference matters or both are the same so there is no motion but just internal stress and strain.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So it is not easy for us to escape the surface of the expanding Earth.
For that, we need a space-expanding rocket whose space-expanding fuel we can make expand faster than normal in space outward into the already existing space.
Wait so now rockets expand space?!?! You are just all over the place. From here on I’ll try to just focus on the more salient point. rather than your blithering blathering.
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
That's enough explosive/expanding thrust in space to push the expanding rocket away from the center of the expanding Earth faster than the surface of the expanding Earth pushes away from the center of the expanding Earth.

The first premise that physicists have to understand and accept is that quarks and of course also photons have density and volume. Internal structure. Internal motion / time.
How much time do they have? What happens when they are out of time?
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Internal PRESSURE. And that internal pressure causes the matter / energy / pushing force in the quarks and photons to spread outward in space into the already existing space.

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Observations should not be explained using space. It's a loser's business. Einstein opened the Pandora's box of physics when he grabbed the concept of curved space out of his hat.
Didn’t you just try to explain escape velocity with a “space-expanding rocket”?
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Curved space is the naked emperor.

The lights expanding in space interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding lights accelerates in the same proportion as the matter and the lights expand.
Yet we don’t find this light that interacts “with each other, accelerating each other's expansion, and thus the speed of the expanding lights accelerates” in just a simple (or other) interferometer. What is this “same proportion” you mention? 1/1, 2/1, ½. Same proportion implies that there is no difference between the expansion, hence effectively no expansion. Anything else would be easily detectable.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
And this has already been scientifically proven.
Sure, proven to be false. Again that’s how sciences works, by falsifiability.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

And you would also accept it if Einstein hadn't pulled a new god out of his hat and named it curved space.

Now, however, you believe in the existence of that god, the curved space. And Einstein is to blame for this. And you yourself.
Non-Euclidean geometry had been around for fifty to 100 years before GR. You want to blame someone blame Bernhard Riemann, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Ferdinand Karl Schweikart and Franz Taurinus. Again you live on the surface of a sphere and can experience that Non-Euclidean geometry for yourself.
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Let's think that Einstein would have presented the same thing as me, i.e. that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate a dark expanding pushing force which has e.g. nature of expanding light.

He would have said that the electrons and photons that can be registered are created from this dark energy that disperses/expands into space, so that electrons and photons also expand, because they consist of this energy that disperses/expands into space, which therefore has an internal pressure that causes it to disperse all the time in space to a larger and larger area of space .

He would have said that, for example, the trajectory of the expanding light pushing past the Sun bends towards the Sun, because the light expanded in space for billions of years, which is also pushed towards the Sun, contains a pushing force that pushes the photons pushing past the Sun towards the Sun.
Again, no he wouldn’t, he would have calculated and presented results of models to test against observational data.
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Einstein would have predicted that during a solar eclipse this could be proven by observing the stars in the background of the Sun whose location is known.

And then it would have been scientifically proven.
Not without projected data from the model to compare with observational data. Also in being consistent with said data, that is all you can prove, that the observed data is consistent with the model. In fact Einstein got the projected theoretical data wrong at first by a factor of 2. However, circumstances prevented the observational data from being collected during an eclipse at that time so that gave Einstein time to find and correct his mistake.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
And no one ever anywhere after that would have thought of making an idiotic claim about the hokkus pokkus space which always curves, expands, undulates, twists, stretches and bangs according to what is needed to explain some observation.
Sure they would as that is what fits the observational data. Heck, Einstein preferred a static universe but had to yield to the observational data of expansion presented collected by Hubble.
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Only losers explain observations with space, because they are unable to explain observations with the help of systems that move in space and change in space.
By all means please let us know when you have such a system. That is, projected data that can be compared to observational data. Right now all you have is self-contradictory and generally contradictory blathering.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

[Self-contradictory and generally contradictory blathering snipped]
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 03:56 PM   #1230
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
How did you plan to do it?

Do you have empty space in a warehouse?

Do you grab hold of empty space with a repulsive force and move it to the region between galaxy clusters?

Should you make room for that empty space to fit it in?

So, should you tear up the empty space in such a way that you could make the empty space you took from the warehouse fit between the already existing empty spaces?

How about where would your extra free space move when you move it from your storage to where you want more free space?

��
I'm not an astronomer or cosmologist. So they are the ones doing it and as such it is on cosmological scales. So looking at various cosmological structures regions of space some with more empty space and some with less. From what I've read and seen the data appears to be consistent models the more free space there is the faster the expansion.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 23rd January 2023 at 04:41 PM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2023, 10:44 PM   #1231
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
The Man write:

"Again, trivially and demonstrably (by you) false. Material are stressed and strained differently by pulling (extending) forces then they are by pushing (compressing) forces"

🤔🤔🤔🤔

No no no!

When you pull something somewhere, you don't apply a pulling force to it.

You always use a pushing force for it.

The horse doesn't pull the cart behind it with some magical pulling force.

The expanding horse pushes the harness forward and all the other expanding atomic nuclei in the expanding harness are pushed after the expanding atomic nuclei in the front parts of the harness to where the expanding horse pushes them.

If you think about it more closely, you will understand that the expanding harness is attached to the expanding carts so that they exert a pushing force on the expanding carts.

Nowhere will you find a pulling force if you try to find it.

Remember that each expanding atomic nucleus exerts an expanding repulsive force on all other expanding atomic nuclei, and all expanding atomic nuclei always push in the direction from which they are least pushed away.

It is also essential to understand and realize that the expanding dark energy / pushing force that the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves moves at the speed of light.

Compared to that, we are really slow creatures.

Maybe all this is just too much for you.

You may not be able to visualize the whole on a small scale.

Maybe you don't even try to understand the whole on a small scale because you've decided in advance that I can't be right 🙂

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2023, 04:57 AM   #1232
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,652
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Does it seem like you're a troll?
Thanks for the confirmation that you can’t think of an experiment that could falsify your fantasy.

We have known all along that your fantasy is incapable of serving anything but platitudes for predictions, and that in fact there is nothing that can’t be predicted with it - hence that it can’t be falsified. At least we know that you also know.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2023, 02:12 PM   #1233
MarkCorrigan
¡No pasarán!
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Слава Україні
Posts: 11,379
Pixie, can you think of anything that would falsify your theory, yes or no?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist. - Hélder Câmara
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2023, 05:24 PM   #1234
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,873
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
The Man write:

"Again, trivially and demonstrably (by you) false. Material are stressed and strained differently by pulling (extending) forces then they are by pushing (compressing) forces"

🤔🤔🤔🤔

No no no!

When you pull something somewhere, you don't apply a pulling force to it.

You always use a pushing force for it.

The horse doesn't pull the cart behind it with some magical pulling force.

The expanding horse pushes the harness forward and all the other expanding atomic nuclei in the expanding harness are pushed after the expanding atomic nuclei in the front parts of the harness to where the expanding horse pushes them.

If you think about it more closely, you will understand that the expanding harness is attached to the expanding carts so that they exert a pushing force on the expanding carts.

Nowhere will you find a pulling force if you try to find it.

Remember that each expanding atomic nucleus exerts an expanding repulsive force on all other expanding atomic nuclei, and all expanding atomic nuclei always push in the direction from which they are least pushed away.

It is also essential to understand and realize that the expanding dark energy / pushing force that the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves moves at the speed of light.

Compared to that, we are really slow creatures.

Maybe all this is just too much for you.

You may not be able to visualize the whole on a small scale.

Maybe you don't even try to understand the whole on a small scale because you've decided in advance that I can't be right 🙂

🙂
Once again pulling and pushing forces apply different stress and strain on materials. Something you even demonstrated by not being able to push the object with the string fully extended. Blather on about "expanding atomic nucleus exerts an expanding repulsive force on all other expanding atomic nuclei" all you want it changes nothing about this basic and demonstrable fact indispensable to material science, engineering, everyday activities and what keeps things from crushing and ripping appart all around you.

Yes, an object pushed more on one side then the other will tend to move in the direction it is pushed less. However, those opposing forces will still compress the object (negative stress and strain), whether they are unbalanced or not. Since that isn't always the case your 'nothing but pushing' can't be either. Pulling forces, even when opposing and balanced, produce positive stress and strain. Which we do easily and often find.

Pre-stressed concrete combines both. Concrete does better under compression (pushing forces) while steel tends to do better under pulling or tensile forces. So you stretch some steel rebar a bit and while it is under tension you cast some concrete around it. When the concrete cures you release the tension on the rebar and the rebar applies a compressive force to the concrete while the concrete keeps the rebar still in a bit of tension.

Pulling and pushing forces are both used just about everywhere. Which of course means your 'pushing only' assertions are disproven just about everywhere.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2023, 12:38 PM   #1235
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Thanks for the confirmation that you can’t think of an experiment that could falsify your fantasy.

We have known all along that your fantasy is incapable of serving anything but platitudes for predictions, and that in fact there is nothing that can’t be predicted with it - hence that it can’t be falsified. At least we know that you also know.
Go far from Earth. Build a long chute. A telescope at the other end of it. Use a telescope to look at a distant galaxy whose location you know. If the galaxy appears to be in the same place as we know it to be, you've proven me wrong. If you see that galaxy in a different place than we know it to be, you've proven the naked emperor of curved space.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2023, 12:39 PM   #1236
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Pixie, can you think of anything that would falsify your theory, yes or no?

Go far from Earth. Build a long chute. A telescope at the other end of it. Use a telescope to look at a distant galaxy whose location you know. If the galaxy appears to be in the same place as we know it to be, you've proven me wrong. If you see that galaxy in a different place than we know it to be, you've proven the naked emperor of curved space.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2023, 12:47 PM   #1237
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Once again pulling and pushing forces apply different stress and strain on materials. Something you even demonstrated by not being able to push the object with the string fully extended. Blather on about "expanding atomic nucleus exerts an expanding repulsive force on all other expanding atomic nuclei" all you want it changes nothing about this basic and demonstrable fact indispensable to material science, engineering, everyday activities and what keeps things from crushing and ripping appart all around you.

Yes, an object pushed more on one side then the other will tend to move in the direction it is pushed less. However, those opposing forces will still compress the object (negative stress and strain), whether they are unbalanced or not. Since that isn't always the case your 'nothing but pushing' can't be either. Pulling forces, even when opposing and balanced, produce positive stress and strain. Which we do easily and often find.

Pre-stressed concrete combines both. Concrete does better under compression (pushing forces) while steel tends to do better under pulling or tensile forces. So you stretch some steel rebar a bit and while it is under tension you cast some concrete around it. When the concrete cures you release the tension on the rebar and the rebar applies a compressive force to the concrete while the concrete keeps the rebar still in a bit of tension.

Pulling and pushing forces are both used just about everywhere. Which of course means your 'pushing only' assertions are disproven just about everywhere.

"Once again pulling and pushing forces apply different stress and strain on materials. Something you even demonstrated by not being able to push the object with the string fully extended."

I am sorry for you. This is all clearly too much for you.

When you try to push with an expanding rope an object that also consists of atomic nuclei expanding in space, the expanding rope pushes with a bend.

That too is based on the pushing force.

There is nothing more wonderful than that 🙂

I've always wondered what you're talking about with the test on the rope.

So you don't understand how this works.

You think you understand, but you really don't 🙂

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2023, 05:11 AM   #1238
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,652
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Go far from Earth. Build a long chute. A telescope at the other end of it. Use a telescope to look at a distant galaxy whose location you know. If the galaxy appears to be in the same place as we know it to be, you've proven me wrong. If you see that galaxy in a different place than we know it to be, you've proven the naked emperor of curved space.
Thanks, at last!

Now, what is a large chute? Why is it necessary for the experiment?

We already have a telescope very far from Earth, the James Webb Space Telescope. Should we check if the galaxies seen from JWST is at the same place as when seen from Earth?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2023, 05:34 AM   #1239
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Thanks, at last!

Now, what is a large chute? Why is it necessary for the experiment?

We already have a telescope very far from Earth, the James Webb Space Telescope. Should we check if the galaxies seen from JWST is at the same place as when seen from Earth?

The light's trajectory bends when it passes the Sun because the Sun stops the billions of years old lights expanding in space.

Lights that have experienced billions of years of entropy do not push away from the sun.

Expanding light that is billions of years old is pushing towards the sun and has been affected by entropy for billions of years.

It contains many densities smaller than photons that collide with photons pushing past the Sun.

Thus, by pushing the photons pushing past the Sun, they are pushed towards the Sun.

The Sun does not curve space.

Curved space is the naked emperor.

I claim that the dark waves of the expanding lights interact with each other and accelerate each other's expansion. It accelerates the speed of expanding lights in the same proportion as substances and lights expand.

This is a scientific claim because we can try to manipulate the trajectory of light using light that is billions of years old.

🙂
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2023, 07:15 AM   #1240
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,652
Sorry, Pixie, I did not see an answer to my question: what is a chute, and which function does it have in the experiment.

Can the JWST be used for the experiment?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.