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 27th January 2023, 11:26 AM   #1241
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
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?
Long wall. Something which stop light, you know.

With JWST we can see how galaxies was born inside / centre to outside 🙂

🙂
__________________
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, 11:27 AM   #1242
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Curved space a’la Einstein vs. expanding lights a’la Savorinen

Yes, curved space is a hoot!

It’s the emperor naked.

🙂

Actually, all lights expand in space outward into the already existing space.

Light waves consist of zillions of separate expanding condensations that cannot be registered with our expanding devices.

Yes, also nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling dark expanding energy / pushing force which have a nature of electrons and photons which also expanding.

For the generation of one expandable photon that can be registered, zillions of them are needed.

What quarks expanding in space are needed for the birth of one star expanding in space.

Really really a lot 🙂

A zillion is not the right number, but it describes in this case that it is a very large number of separate densifications, which therefore expand and circulate among themselves the energy that disperses / expanding into space / pushing force.

These discrete expanding densifications have an internal structure. Internal motion / time. Density and volume. Internal pressure.

They are able to push through each other and during that time they interact with each other strongly, causing each other’s expansion to accelerate.

That, in turn, causes the speed of the expanding light to accelerate away from where the expanding light is pushing away from.

Expanding light therefore has its own internal pressure.

All expanding lights form a common energy field expanding into space.

Far away from the expanding stars, the expanding lights push straight ahead.

When the expanding light passes close to the expanding star, its separate expanding condensations and separate expanding photons are exerted more of a pushing force on the side away from the expanding star.

This is based on the fact that the expanding light, which has experienced entropy for billions of years, contains very small-scale condensations that collide with the expanding photons pushing past the expanding star, and thus by pushing them, they are pushed towards the expanding star.

That is, the new expanding light originating from the expanding star does not yet contain the energy / pushing force of that scale, or at least not nearly as much pushing force / energy of that scale, and thus the expanding photons that push past the expanding star are hardly pushed away from the expanding star 🙂

For the same reason, the so-called the gravitational lensing effect caused by galaxies.

This view is scientific.

We can try to manipulate the trajectory of light using light that is billions of years old.

You can’t try to manipulate curved space in such a way that you could get any kind of information that this so-called the manipulation of curved space would have been successful.

When you understand that actually the expanding waves of light that are dark to us consist of zillions of separate expanding condensations that interact with each other, you understand that the so-called expanding space is also needed to explain observations.

The cosmological redshift of light is also explained by the fact that the expanding lights, which are dark to us, interact with each other and accelerate each other’s expansion and at the same time speed of movement.

The more often the expanding light has entered the region of each other’s galaxy clusters or passed them, the more often its speed has been accelerated by fresher, more energetic and slightly faster expanding light, and thus the expanding light is more stretched the older it is.

It makes no sense to explain the cosmological redshift of light in terms of space. That is, that kind of hokkokkok somehow somehow with the help of the expanding space.

It can be explained in all its simplicity by the fact that all lights expand in space outward into the already existing space so that they interact with each other, etc.

Of course, we have to think about what has happened to the cosmologically redshifted light as it has moved through space.

There is no reason to think about what would have happened to space.

After all, we haven’t observed the expanding space.

We have observed cosmologically redshifted LIGHT.

Think about that every time you read silly nonsense about the expanding space.

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 🙂

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 28th January 2023, 07:13 AM   #1243
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,738
If you think Pixie of key sounds like a badly broken record, you're not wrong.

On 22 January, Pixie of key posted the 100+ lines of text quoted in this spoiler:
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 🙂

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/

🤔

Yesterday (27 January), Pixie of key posted the 100+ lines of text quoted in this spoiler:
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 🙂

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 🙂

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

🙂

The only differences between the texts quoted in those two spoilers are:
  • The second text deleted five emoticons. (One was a row of four "thinking face" smilies, Unicode character U+1F914. The other was a "smiling face with open mouth", Unicode character U+1F603.)
  • At the very end, the second text changed the "thinking face" emoticon of the first text to a "smiling face with open mouth".
  • The second text changed nine single apostrophes (Unicode U+0027) to right single quotation marks (Unicode U+2019).
  • Just before the end, the second text omitted the first text's claim that "I have found out how the universe works 😃".
In like manner, the text quoted in the first spoiler above, from 22 January, was almost an exact copy of text posted on 21 January.
W.D.Clinger 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 28th January 2023, 10:45 AM   #1244
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,665
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Long wall. Something which stop light, you know.

With JWST we can see how galaxies was born inside / centre to outside
So … a “chute” is a long wall that stops light. I am afraid I can’t really understand your experiment.

In normal English a chute is “an inclined plane, sloping channel, or passage down or through which things may pass” (Merriam-Webster)
__________________
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 28th January 2023, 12:40 PM   #1245
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
So … a “chute” is a long wall that stops light. I am afraid I can’t really understand your experiment.

In normal English a chute is “an inclined plane, sloping channel, or passage down or through which things may pass” (Merriam-Webster)
The diameter of the gutter could be the same as that of the telescope.

The billions of years old expanding light pushing from the open side towards the bottom of the gutter would interact with the photons moving towards the telescope under the shelter of the trough.

This way they would be pushed towards the bottom of the chute / gutter.

A galaxy so far away that we know where it is seems to be in a different place than we know it to be.

The experiment is carried out far from the Earth and a long chute / gutter is used for it, the mass of which cannot be claimed to curve space.

Curved space is the naked emperor.

🙂
__________________
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 28th January 2023, 02:52 PM   #1246
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,665
OK, I see now. It will take a while before this experiment is done
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 01:59 AM   #1247
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Einstein was right that time is relative.

Apparently, he never said why this is so. Or if he said something, at least not for the right reason.

If Einstein had been able to tell why time is relative, he would have automatically also been able to tell what the wave and particle nature of light is based on.

However, he was never able to solve this mystery of light that has plagued physicists until now 🙂

I have also figured this out when I had to 🙂

I guess this truth is just too much for today's physicists.

After all, it may be scary for some to think that your own body consists of condensations that constantly circulate explosive energy, which also explode / expand in space to a larger and larger area of space, because they consist of this space-dispersing energy / pushing force, which is more dense in these so-called in particles.

So, in all its simplicity, these so-called particles are just such congested areas of space-dispersing energy / pushing force, where the expanding energy is completely changed over time.

🙂

Ok, to the point 🙂

Light indeed has a particle and a wave nature.

Light waves consist of zillions of separate condensations that cannot be registered with our devices.

So light waves are unregistered for us. Dark waves.

The wave nature of light is pushed forward with the help of photons that can be registered.

Waves, on the other hand, carry photons with them.

It is proven by double slit experiments.

Send individual photons into motion in the double-slit experiment and see where these light waves, which are dark to us, take them.

So in the double slit experiment, individual photons are sent into motion, why are they guided to the sensitive detector in the same areas as when the light forms an interference pattern?

🤔
Double slit test

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_double-slit test

"If sunlight is replaced by a light source capable of producing one photon at a time, and if a sufficiently sensitive reflector capable of detecting a single photon is used, Young's experiment can theoretically be performed one photon at a time, with the same results as other experiments.

If the second slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the reflector form a single peak over time, just like in the case of a single slit with the sun as a light source.

But, if both slits are opened, the photons eventually form an interference pattern of a series of dark and light spots on the reflector.

This result would seem to both confirm and refute the wave theory at the same time. On the other hand, the interference pattern proves that light behaves in a wave-like manner, even though it was processed one photon at a time."

🤔

There we have scientific proof that lights consist of dark waves that interact with each other.

Einstein was never able to realize this.

And it's not that the photons don't really start moving immediately at the speed of light.

Of course, photons are created from energy moving at the speed of light, so in that sense they always move at the speed of light or at the speed that is characteristic of light in any region.

Einstein was not even able to realize that light has its own internal pressure that causes light to expand in space to a larger and larger area of space.

So these light waves, which are dark to us, consist of zillions of separate expanding condensations that circulate among themselves the expanding energy / pushing force of which everything observable basically consists.

The creation of one expanding photon requires zillions of these expanding condensations of dark energy, which the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves.

That is, photons also expand and expanding photons also have volume and density. Internal structure. Internal motion / time. Internal pressure.

Ok, when the expanding photon pushes towards the expanding nucleus of an atom, if its density and volume are suitable, it causes the expansion of the pushing dark energy condensations to accelerate into an explosion, so that they don't have time to push each other away from each other as fast as they expand.

Now they combine / create a new expanding photon that moves immediately after being born at the speed characteristic of light. This is because the speed of those zillions of separate expanding condensations had already accelerated for quite some time away from the nucleus of the expanding atom.

This is extremely much more logical than the option that the photon was born one by one so that it would immediately move at the speed characteristic of light.

It is completely ridiculous to assume that photons could be reflected from atoms so that they would move towards the atom at the speed of light and one or two movements would turn away from the atom so that the photon would move all the time at the speed of light.

One could assume that the photon's speed should first slow down, stop, and then speed up again, etc.

That is, if we assume that the same photons are reflected away from the substance.

Well, that's not the case.

The expanding photon meets the expanding dark energy, the speed of which has already accelerated away from the expanding atomic nucleus, from where this expanding dark energy is constantly pushed out in zillions of separate expanding condensations, so that they immediately begin to group into waves according to how they meet the waves pushing towards the nucleus.

Further away from the expanding atomic nucleus, these waves grouped in a manner characteristic of the nucleus then combine with opposing waves that continue towards the nucleus and are thus able to shape the dark energy condensations pushing out of the nucleus near the nucleus into waves according to what is characteristic of that nucleus.

By the way.

Scientists don't remove electrons from around nuclei.

They give birth to new expanding electrons from the dark energy that the expanding nuclei of atoms recycle.

When you understand what light is really like, you understand that the old light is cosmologically red-shifted precisely because the dark waves of the expanding lights interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion so that at the same time the speed of the expanding lights accelerates in the same proportion as matter and lights expand.

That is, the speed of the slightly slower expanding light originating from the second galaxy cluster accelerates when it pushes through or past the region of the second galaxy cluster, in which case the newer expanding light that is slightly faster than the old expanding light accelerates its speed to the same as what is characteristic of light in that region and thus the old expanding light stretches at the same time, i.e. cosmologically redshifted.

And for this you really don't need a bit by bit expanding space.

🙂

Yes, I am the One 🙂

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 06:10 AM   #1248
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
🙂

Yes, I am the One 🙂

🙂
Different, anyway.
When it comes to innovation, uniqueness is overrated. If your idea is the first of its kind, evaluate why no one else thought of it first.
W.D.Clinger 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 29th January 2023, 08:13 AM   #1249
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
In my view, dark energy creates registrable particles.

For you, dark energy somehow somehow causes the ever-expanding space to expand at an accelerating rate, somehow, somehow.

Which one is the more scientific statement 🙂

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 08:47 AM   #1250
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
In my view, dark energy creates registrable particles.
The phrase I highlighted appears to be unique (or nearly so) to your musings.

We know very little about the nature and behavior of dark energy. I suppose dark energy could create particles, but I don't know of any reason to think it does.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
For you, dark energy somehow somehow causes the ever-expanding space to expand at an accelerating rate, somehow, somehow.

Which one is the more scientific statement ��

��
The statement I highlighted in blue is the more scientific statement.

The reason it is the more scientific statement is that the possibility of dark energy is a direct consequence of field equations that are the very core of general relativity. For more than a century, those equations have been tested out the wazoo, passing every test. A well-nigh ubiquitous technology now relies on those equations.

Those equations imply the existence of idealized mathematical models that are the foundation of the ΛCDM model that is, as Wikipedia states:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
...the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:
Your alternative involves a complete rejection of general relativity and the enormous body of experimental and observational evidence in support of general relativity. You have offered absolutely no scientific evidence against the theory of general relativity, relying instead upon repetition of pejorative rhetoric that amounts to mindless spamming. You have also offered absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your alternative. Indeed, you have yet to offer a truly coherent exposition of your alternative.

So it isn't at all difficult to decide which of the two statements is more scientific.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 29th January 2023 at 08:58 AM. Reason: added a link and corrected a typo
W.D.Clinger 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 29th January 2023, 10:37 AM   #1251
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The phrase I highlighted appears to be unique (or nearly so) to your musings.

We know very little about the nature and behavior of dark energy. I suppose dark energy could create particles, but I don't know of any reason to think it does.


The statement I highlighted in blue is the more scientific statement.

The reason it is the more scientific statement is that the possibility of dark energy is a direct consequence of field equations that are the very core of general relativity. For more than a century, those equations have been tested out the wazoo, passing every test. A well-nigh ubiquitous technology now relies on those equations.

Those equations imply the existence of idealized mathematical models that are the foundation of the ΛCDM model that is, as Wikipedia states:


Your alternative involves a complete rejection of general relativity and the enormous body of experimental and observational evidence in support of general relativity. You have offered absolutely no scientific evidence against the theory of general relativity, relying instead upon repetition of pejorative rhetoric that amounts to mindless spamming. You have also offered absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your alternative. Indeed, you have yet to offer a truly coherent exposition of your alternative.

So it isn't at all difficult to decide which of the two statements is more scientific.
You obviously don't understand the fact that expanding space has not been observed.

All radiation moving in space and changing in space originates from substances moving in space and changing in space.

There is no radiation emitted by space.

So you just have to believe in the existence of this god or expanding space.

In addition to this, you believe in the existence of this other god, or dark energy. This other god somehow somehow causes this other god to expand at an accelerating rate somehow somehow.

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 10:51 AM   #1252
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key 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."

I am sorry for you. This is all clearly too much for you.
Nope, it is what I did for quite some time. Design things that didn't get crushed or ripped apart (unless that was a design requirement) in their normal use.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
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.

Then why doesn't everything else "that also consists of atomic nuclei expanding in space" do the same?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
That too is based on the pushing force.

There is nothing more wonderful than that 🙂
What that you can't push anything without something doubling over itself like the string you tried to use in a way precluded by the conditions of the experiment? Sounds pretty suck ass to me, as well as unsupported by everyday experience. Let alone the fact that there is a type of rope that could meet the experimental conditions.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

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 🙂

🙂
No, you didn't 'wonder', you knew it doesn't work which is why you didn't even try and I've told you right from the start what I've been talking about.

Your assertions just don't work, just amongst themselves or in general everyday experience.

I've designed things used by civilians and militaries around the world. So demonstrably I really do "understand how this works".

Have you figured out yet what type of rope could meet the conditions of the experiment?

While additional extraneous forces that counter each other (your stronger and weaker pushing forces) don't matter to the net force on a body or section of body. It will significantly change the strain and strain applied to the body or section of body. Since we don't find such forces nor have to account in any way for them, in engineering, design of finite element analysis. Means simply that they are meaningless.

However, if the don't directly counter each other, then not only would they change the stress and strain on the object but also the net force in this case (in direction, magnitude or both). As this appears to be your general assertion it would also mean that there is no such thing as a inertial (or co-moving) frame. Everything would be accelerating away from each other all the time and by this time already near relativistic speeds. Again something we don't find which makes your assertion untrue in the worst case and simply irrelevant in the best.
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 11:00 AM   #1253
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
You obviously don't understand the fact that expanding space has not been observed.
You evidently don't understand that your dark energy creating "registrable particles" "has not been observed" and by just your own assertion can not be observed.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
All radiation moving in space and changing in space originates from substances moving in space and changing in space.

There is no radiation emitted by space.
Once again nothing about and expanding metric of space requires it to emit radiation.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So you just have to believe in the existence of this god or expanding space.

In addition to this, you believe in the existence of this other god, or dark energy. This other god somehow somehow causes this other god to expand at an accelerating rate somehow somehow.

🙂
No, belief is not a requirement either. Again if the data fits the model(s) then that about all you can say. By all means, please, get back to us when you have at least self-consistent notions, let alone a model.
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 02:44 PM   #1254
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, it is what I did for quite some time. Design things that didn't get crushed or ripped apart (unless that was a design requirement) in their normal use.




Then why doesn't everything else "that also consists of atomic nuclei expanding in space" do the same?



What that you can't push anything without something doubling over itself like the string you tried to use in a way precluded by the conditions of the experiment? Sounds pretty suck ass to me, as well as unsupported by everyday experience. Let alone the fact that there is a type of rope that could meet the experimental conditions.



No, you didn't 'wonder', you knew it doesn't work which is why you didn't even try and I've told you right from the start what I've been talking about.

Your assertions just don't work, just amongst themselves or in general everyday experience.

I've designed things used by civilians and militaries around the world. So demonstrably I really do "understand how this works".

Have you figured out yet what type of rope could meet the conditions of the experiment?

While additional extraneous forces that counter each other (your stronger and weaker pushing forces) don't matter to the net force on a body or section of body. It will significantly change the strain and strain applied to the body or section of body. Since we don't find such forces nor have to account in any way for them, in engineering, design of finite element analysis. Means simply that they are meaningless.

However, if the don't directly counter each other, then not only would they change the stress and strain on the object but also the net force in this case (in direction, magnitude or both). As this appears to be your general assertion it would also mean that there is no such thing as a inertial (or co-moving) frame. Everything would be accelerating away from each other all the time and by this time already near relativistic speeds. Again something we don't find which makes your assertion untrue in the worst case and simply irrelevant in the best.
Woe to you.

Or that you should move at relativistic speeds.

As I have stated many times. This is just too much for you.

Now tell me how expanding light could begin to move any faster than what is characteristic of expanding light?

Don't understand what the correct proportionality means?

When the expanding lights, which are dark to us, interact with each other and accelerate each other's expansion, it also means that the speed of the expanding lights accelerates all the time in the same proportion as the substances and lights expand.

Is this really too much for you?

If so, then I have no reason to even try to twist the iron wire out of some ridiculous experiment with a rope.

Where the expanding water in space can be e.g. in the form of a liquid and as solid ice, the rope can push through a bend even though solid iron does not.

Of course, the iron also starts to push into the bend if you heat it appropriately 🙂

But yeah, I didn't even try to comment on that experiment with the rope in the first place.

It's a stupid way of you to try to give such a picture that the nature of the rope would not be explained with my model.

It's not about whether the rope is explained by my model or not.

It's about how you can't visualize the whole on a small scale?

If you could, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 02:46 PM   #1255
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You evidently don't understand that your dark energy creating "registrable particles" "has not been observed" and by just your own assertion can not be observed.



Once again nothing about and expanding metric of space requires it to emit radiation.



No, belief is not a requirement either. Again if the data fits the model(s) then that about all you can say. By all means, please, get back to us when you have at least self-consistent notions, let alone a model.
Yes, scientists have for many, many years been able to create detectable electrons from this expanding dark energy.

They just haven't understood what they have done.

Dudes think they are detaching electrons that already exist outside the nuclei, when in fact completely new electrons are born from this expanding dark energy that the expanding atomic nuclei circulate with the nuclei of all other expanding atoms.

Too much also for you 🙂

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 02:52 PM   #1256
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Einstein was right that time is relative.

Apparently, he never said why this is so. Or if he said something, at least not for the right reason.
Of course he did say why. Because simitanity is reference frame dependent (relative).


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
If Einstein had been able to tell why time is relative, he would have automatically also been able to tell what the wave and particle nature of light is based on.

However, he was never able to solve this mystery of light that has plagued physicists until now 🙂
Physicists haven't been been "plagued" by wave/particle duality since the wave packetWP.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
I have also figured this out when I had to 🙂

I guess this truth is just too much for today's physicists.

After all, it may be scary for some to think that your own body consists of condensations that constantly circulate explosive energy, which also explode / expand in space to a larger and larger area of space, because they consist of this space-dispersing energy / pushing force, which is more dense in these so-called in particles.

So, in all its simplicity, these so-called particles are just such congested areas of space-dispersing energy / pushing force, where the expanding energy is completely changed over time.

🙂

Ok, to the point 🙂
Or more to the point, that we don't find any of this "energy / pushing force", ever, anywhere.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Light indeed has a particle and a wave nature.

Light waves consist of zillions of separate condensations that cannot be registered with our devices.
So light waves are unregistered for us. Dark waves.
So another self-asserted unverifiable and unfalsifiable assertion.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
The wave nature of light is pushed forward with the help of photons that can be registered.

Waves, on the other hand, carry photons with them.

It is proven by double slit experiments.
No it isn't, the wave nature of light is not that the photons travel in a wave like motion. It is that they have phase so travel time can make one photon the anti-photon of another.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Send individual photons into motion in the double-slit experiment and see where these light waves, which are dark to us, take them.

So in the double slit experiment, individual photons are sent into motion, why are they guided to the sensitive detector in the same areas as when the light forms an interference pattern?
They aren't "guided" or "sent into motion" like a wave. The light does form an interference pattern and that pattern is made up of those individual photons weather sent one at a time or all at once. The pattern is determined by a probability distribution based on the phase relation of all possible flight paths to the detector/screen. See Path integral formulationWP (AKA sum over histories).


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
🤔
Double slit test

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_double-slit test

"If sunlight is replaced by a light source capable of producing one photon at a time, and if a sufficiently sensitive reflector capable of detecting a single photon is used, Young's experiment can theoretically be performed one photon at a time, with the same results as other experiments.

If the second slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the reflector form a single peak over time, just like in the case of a single slit with the sun as a light source.

But, if both slits are opened, the photons eventually form an interference pattern of a series of dark and light spots on the reflector.

This result would seem to both confirm and refute the wave theory at the same time. On the other hand, the interference pattern proves that light behaves in a wave-like manner, even though it was processed one photon at a time."

🤔

There we have scientific proof that lights consist of dark waves that interact with each other.
No, all that we have is confirmation that the observational data is consistent with the probability distribution projected by quantum electro-dynamics.

What distribution does your model project?


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Einstein was never able to realize this.
Nor were you.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
And it's not that the photons don't really start moving immediately at the speed of light.

Of course, photons are created from energy moving at the speed of light, so in that sense they always move at the speed of light or at the speed that is characteristic of light in any region.

Einstein was not even able to realize that light has its own internal pressure that causes light to expand in space to a larger and larger area of space.

So these light waves, which are dark to us, consist of zillions of separate expanding condensations that circulate among themselves the expanding energy / pushing force of which everything observable basically consists.

The creation of one expanding photon requires zillions of these expanding condensations of dark energy, which the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves.

That is, photons also expand and expanding photons also have volume and density. Internal structure. Internal motion / time. Internal pressure.
How much time do they have?

How much internal pressure do they have?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Ok, when the expanding photon pushes towards the expanding nucleus of an atom, if its density and volume are suitable, it causes the expansion of the pushing dark energy condensations to accelerate into an explosion, so that they don't have time to push each other away from each other as fast as they expand.

Now they combine / create a new expanding photon that moves immediately after being born at the speed characteristic of light. This is because the speed of those zillions of separate expanding condensations had already accelerated for quite some time away from the nucleus of the expanding atom.

This is extremely much more logical than the option that the photon was born one by one so that it would immediately move at the speed characteristic of light.
However, that is exactly what you say, your photon is born from your "zillions of separate expanding condensations" and is immediately moving at the speed of light. Your superfluous undetectable "zillions of separate expanding condensations" don't change any of that.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It is completely ridiculous to assume that photons could be reflected from atoms so that they would move towards the atom at the speed of light and one or two movements would turn away from the atom so that the photon would move all the time at the speed of light.

One could assume that the photon's speed should first slow down, stop, and then speed up again, etc.

That is, if we assume that the same photons are reflected away from the substance.

Well, that's not the case.

The expanding photon meets the expanding dark energy, the speed of which has already accelerated away from the expanding atomic nucleus, from where this expanding dark energy is constantly pushed out in zillions of separate expanding condensations, so that they immediately begin to group into waves according to how they meet the waves pushing towards the nucleus.

Further away from the expanding atomic nucleus, these waves grouped in a manner characteristic of the nucleus then combine with opposing waves that continue towards the nucleus and are thus able to shape the dark energy condensations pushing out of the nucleus near the nucleus into waves according to what is characteristic of that nucleus.

By the way.

Scientists don't remove electrons from around nuclei.

They give birth to new expanding electrons from the dark energy that the expanding nuclei of atoms recycle.
Fantastic, so the nuclei still has the same number of electrons around it. No?


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
When you understand what light is really like, you understand that the old light is cosmologically red-shifted precisely because the dark waves of the expanding lights interact with each other, accelerating each other's expansion so that at the same time the speed of the expanding lights accelerates in the same proportion as matter and lights expand.
So again, "in the same proportion as matter and lights expand" meaning as if there was no such expanding at all.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
That is, the speed of the slightly slower expanding light originating from the second galaxy cluster accelerates when it pushes through or past the region of the second galaxy cluster, in which case the newer expanding light that is slightly faster than the old expanding light accelerates its speed to the same as what is characteristic of light in that region and thus the old expanding light stretches at the same time, i.e. cosmologically redshifted.

And for this you really don't need a bit by bit expanding space.

🙂

Yes, I am the One 🙂

🙂
Again, by all means please, finailly be the one to show observational evidence that any such expansion (accelerated or otherwise) happens. That the speed of light in a vacuum can vary or anything other then just stuff that is, by simply your own assertions, undetectable and "in the same proportion" such that it is indistinguishable from not happening at all.
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 03:56 PM   #1257
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Woe to you.

Or that you should move at relativistic speeds.

As I have stated many times. This is just too much for you.

Now tell me how expanding light could begin to move any faster than what is characteristic of expanding light?
You're the only here who has claimed that the speed of light in a vacuum changes and that your expansion accelerates.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Don't understand what the correct proportionality means?
You don't have one or have, as yet, been able to relate it to us or what such a proportion is proportional to. Basically it just ends up being your excuse as to why we can't observe your claimed expansion

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
When the expanding lights, which are dark to us, interact with each other and accelerate each other's expansion, it also means that the speed of the expanding lights accelerates all the time in the same proportion as the substances and lights expand.
And again all you are asserting is that your claims make no difference to the observational data.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Is this really too much for you?
You're the one who can't say what that proportion is and what it is proportional to. Making it just a excuse to claim your claims make no difference.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
If so, then I have no reason to even try to twist the iron wire out of some ridiculous experiment with a rope.

Where the expanding water in space can be e.g. in the form of a liquid and as solid ice, the rope can push through a bend even though solid iron does not.

Of course, the iron also starts to push into the bend if you heat it appropriately 🙂

Sure temperature can affect how materials react to stress and strain. However that still doesn't change the fact that the difference between pushing and pulling force can be readily apparent in some everyday materials.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
But yeah, I didn't even try to comment on that experiment with the rope in the first place.
Sure you did, you made a whole video where you deliberately did it in a way that was precluded by the stated conditions.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It's a stupid way of you to try to give such a picture that the nature of the rope would not be explained with my model.
That's because the point isn't the rope but that pulling forces are an easily demonstrable fact of everyday life. Hence, the stupid remains yours and you haven't got model.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It's not about whether the rope is explained by my model or not.
You haven't got a model, so how could it explain anything?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
It's about how you can't visualize the whole on a small scale?

If you could, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions

🙂
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 04:01 PM   #1258
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Yes, scientists have for many, many years been able to create detectable electrons from this expanding dark energy.

They just haven't understood what they have done.

Dudes think they are detaching electrons that already exist outside the nuclei, when in fact completely new electrons are born from this expanding dark energy that the expanding atomic nuclei circulate with the nuclei of all other expanding atoms.

Too much also for you 🙂

🙂
So again, what happens to the electrons around the "nuclei"? Does their number change?
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 10:48 PM   #1259
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Yes, Einstein Was Wrong.

The light emitted by stars outside our galaxy is significantly brighter than previously thought.

https://scitechdaily.com/challenging...than-expected/
.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100

Last edited by Pixie of key; 29th January 2023 at 10:55 PM.
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 29th January 2023, 10:52 PM   #1260
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Challenging Past Assumptions: Light From Outside Our Galaxy Much Brighter Than Expected
”Researchers at Rochester Institute of Technology have conducted a study with new measurements that show the light emitted by stars outside our galaxy is two to three times brighter than the light from known populations of galaxies. These findings challenge previous assumptions about the number and environment of stars in the universe. The results of the study have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal and are currently available on ArXiv.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Myös suomeksi alempana

This is very interesting science news 🙂

1. Did the light once start brighter for one reason or another than it does today?

Doesn’t seem like a logical thought.

2. And could it be possible that the stars radiate much more energy than has been detected?

This option seems much more logical.

That is, most of the mass of light would be in light waves that are unregistered for us, so light waves could be called dark waves of light.

At the same time, this explains the mystery of light, i.e. how it can have both a wave nature and a particle nature.

Our devices can register even photons.

But with the help of photons, the wave nature of light also emerges.

When individual photons are sent into motion in the double-slit experiment, these dark waves of light are affecting the experiment, and this logically explains why the individual photons in the experiment are mostly directed to certain areas of the sensitive detector, so that the detectors develop over time this so-called interference pattern.

”Physicist G. I. Taylor performed an experiment in 1909 that established the dualistic nature of electromagnetic radiation. In it, weak light was allowed to pass onto a photographic plate through two slits in an opaque plate between the light source and the photographic plate. Instead of two stripes forming on the photographic plate, an interference pattern consisting of several stripes of different strengths was formed .[1] This was first explained by photons interfering with each other in the slits, but this explanation was disproved by using a photon source that emitted only one photon at a time; this experimental setup also produced a similar interference pattern.”

https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double slit test

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Even if I say this myself, this is incredibly much more logical in this way than how quantum physicists nowadays desperately try to explain the phenomenon that is observed when individual photons are sent into motion in a double-slit experiment.

Here’s a ridiculous example.

”One of the interpretations of this famous experiment is that a photon can be in many different places at the same time. According to the path integral formalism, a photon travels from the light source to the photographic plate along basically all possible paths, interacting with a photon in a parallel universe.

According to physicist David Deutsch, this is evidence for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.[2]”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Let me laugh out loud for the rest of the day 🙂

”a photon can be in many different places at the same time.”

Heh heh 🙂

How many of you believe this kind of nonsense?

Adults really.

In all its simplicity, it’s all about the fact that the nuclei of the atoms circulate energy among themselves, which our devices cannot register.

This energy, which is dark to us, then creates particles that can be registered under suitable conditions, such as electrons and photons.

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Ok, and then to the point itself.

When most of the light emitted by the stars starts out as dark light, this is exactly what makes it possible for the light to brighten during its journey.

So the farther the star is from us, the dimmer we perceive it.

But as it has now been discovered, we do not perceive them as dim as mathematical formulas should.

For some reason, the light brightens on its way.

That is, if for some reason it didn’t initially start off brighter than expected.

Of course, this is also possible in some cases.

Of course, external factors are able to activate stars, and thus the star may shine brighter than normal from time to time.

But I guess that’s not what this is about.

But precisely because these waves of light, which are dark to us, can create new photons along the way.

Here is yet another proof that the expanding lights consist of dark expanding waves that are able to interact with each other in such a way that they accelerate each other’s expansion and thus the speed of the expanding lights also accelerates all the time in the same proportion as substances and lights expand in 3D space outward into the already existing 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 29th January 2023, 11:07 PM   #1261
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
So again, what happens to the electrons around the "nuclei"? Does their number change?
Do you think physicists could track individual electrons around nuclei?

Maybe take a video and see, hey do you see, around this nucleus there seem to be this many electrons?

That roof doesn't stick out like that.

Physicists assume that a certain amount of electrons somehow remain around the nuclei, depending on how heavy the nucleus of the atom is.

Those electrons aren't really there at all.

Of course, electrons can be born all the time from this expanding dark energy that the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves.

But they continue on their way towards the nearby expanding nucleus of the atom and when they interact with the expanding dark energy pushing against it, they give birth to a new expanding electron.

The electron itself breaks up into its parts when it interacts with the expanding dark energy it encounters, from which it gives birth to a new expanding electron, which continues its journey towards the expanding nucleus of the atom from which this electron originated, which caused it to be born from the expanding dark energy.

When an already existing electron encounters dark energy and causes a new electron to be born, it itself is strongly dispersed to become less dense and its remnants are absorbed into the oncoming dark energy waves.

A similar phenomenon when a meteor returns "to the end" in the atmosphere.

🙂
__________________
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 29th January 2023, 11:13 PM   #1262
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
By the way.

What matters is how many expanding protons and expanding neutrons there are in the expanding atomic nucleus.

The more of them there are, the more densely this expanding dark energy is pushed away from the expanding nuclei of atoms, and the denser the waves are grouped as they push away.

There are no electron shells around the nuclei of atoms.

Expanding dark energy is pushed out of the expanding nuclei of atoms, which is grouped into denser waves the more protons and neutrons the expanding atomic nucleus consists of.

🙂
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 10:08 AM   #1263
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Yes, Einstein Was Wrong.

The light emitted by stars outside our galaxy is significantly brighter than previously thought.

https://scitechdaily.com/challenging...than-expected/
.
As far as I know Einstein never said anything about the brightness of stars outside galaxy. Which of course would make the one who is wrong, you.
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 10:17 AM   #1264
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
As far as I know Einstein never said anything about the brightness of stars outside galaxy. Which of course would make the one who is wrong, you.
So, you mean this os not problem for today theories?

🤔
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 10:39 AM   #1265
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Do you think physicists could track individual electrons around nuclei?

Maybe take a video and see, hey do you see, around this nucleus there seem to be this many electrons?

That roof doesn't stick out like that.

Physicists assume that a certain amount of electrons somehow remain around the nuclei, depending on how heavy the nucleus of the atom is.
What? Where the heck did you get that from? Given the electron mass is 1/2000 the mass of a proton or neutron that would be a rather cumbersome way to go about it. The charge of a particle can be measured by it's behavior in an electrical field.

Does losing an electron alter the charge of your atoms? Does gaining one?


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Those electrons aren't really there at all.

Of course, electrons can be born all the time from this expanding dark energy that the expanding nuclei of atoms circulate among themselves.

But they continue on their way towards the nearby expanding nucleus of the atom and when they interact with the expanding dark energy pushing against it, they give birth to a new expanding electron.

The electron itself breaks up into its parts when it interacts with the expanding dark energy it encounters, from which it gives birth to a new expanding electron, which continues its journey towards the expanding nucleus of the atom from which this electron originated, which caused it to be born from the expanding dark energy.

When an already existing electron encounters dark energy and causes a new electron to be born, it itself is strongly dispersed to become less dense and its remnants are absorbed into the oncoming dark energy waves.

A similar phenomenon when a meteor returns "to the end" in the atmosphere.

🙂
Well since you didn't answer the question here it is again "what happens to the electrons around the "nuclei"? Does their number change?"

So now it seems electrons aren't always pushed away from your expanding nucle by your expanding/pushing force?
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 10:47 AM   #1266
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So, you mean this os not problem for today theories?

��
I mean what I said, that "As far as I know Einstein never said anything about the brightness of stars outside galaxy. Which of course would make the one who is wrong, you."

Your claim was that "Yes, Einstein Was Wrong." because of this, yet you haven't shown anything Einstein said about "the brightness of stars outside galaxy". So again you remain the only one wrong.

I expect it would be a problem for any theory dependent on a particular "brightness of stars outside our galaxy". Though I can't think of any with such a critical dependence. Whenever you do actually get a theory, do please let us know what that projects for "the brightness of stars outside our galaxy".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th January 2023 at 10:55 AM. 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 30th January 2023, 10:54 AM   #1267
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
By the way.

What matters is how many expanding protons and expanding neutrons there are in the expanding atomic nucleus.

The more of them there are, the more densely this expanding dark energy is pushed away from the expanding nuclei of atoms, and the denser the waves are grouped as they push away.

There are no electron shells around the nuclei of atoms.

Expanding dark energy is pushed out of the expanding nuclei of atoms, which is grouped into denser waves the more protons and neutrons the expanding atomic nucleus consists of.

🙂
So now your claim is that all atoms are positively charged?
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 11:05 AM   #1268
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

[superfluous bloviating snipped]
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
��������

Even if I say this myself, this is incredibly much more logical in this way than how quantum physicists nowadays desperately try to explain the phenomenon that is observed when individual photons are sent into motion in a double-slit experiment.

Here’s a ridiculous example.

”One of the interpretations of this famous experiment is that a photon can be in many different places at the same time. According to the path integral formalism, a photon travels from the light source to the photographic plate along basically all possible paths, interacting with a photon in a parallel universe.

According to physicist David Deutsch, this is evidence for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.[2]”

��������

Let me laugh out loud for the rest of the day ��

”a photon can be in many different places at the same time.”

Heh heh ��
Well again, when you have a model or theory you can compare the pattern it projects to what is observed. Till then you don't even have anything to compare to observations.



Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
How many of you believe this kind of nonsense?
Is belief a critical requirement for your notions?

I certainly know of no aspect of quantum field theory that makes belief or the lack thereof a relevant factor in projecting an interference pattern.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

[superfluous bloviating 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 30th January 2023, 11:42 AM   #1269
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Well again, when you have a model or theory you can compare the pattern it projects to what is observed. Till then you don't even have anything to compare to observations.





Is belief a critical requirement for your notions?

I certainly know of no aspect of quantum field theory that makes belief or the lack thereof a relevant factor in projecting an interference pattern.
So do you think that one photon can be in many places at the same time?

If you really think that could be possible, then I know with 100 percent certainty that I shouldn't waste another second of my time on you.

By the way.

The ability of expanding atomic nuclei to recycle expanding dark energy can be altered by an external factor.

It is about whether the expanding dark energy pushing out of the expanding atomic nucleus pushes the dark energy pushing past the nucleus away more strongly than it is pushed towards the atomic nucleus.

That is, does it bend towards the core or does it push past the core or is the energy pushing out of the core even able to push the dark energy pushing towards the core so that part of it pushes past the core.

This determines what charge the expanding atomic nucleus has.

And an external factor can therefore change that reservation.

So, anyway, just answer this. So do you think that one photon can be in many places at the same time?

🤔
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 12:52 PM   #1270
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So do you think that one photon can be in many places at the same time?

If you really think that could be possible, then I know with 100 percent certainty that I shouldn't waste another second of my time on you.

It seems Pixie of key has avoided wasting any time on learning about the work of quite a few famous physicists, including these:

In 1918, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Max Earl Ernst Ludwig Planck "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta".

In 1922, the 1921 [sic] Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".

The 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics was also awarded in 1922, to Niels Henrik David Bohr “for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them”.

In 1929, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Louis de Broglie “for his discovery of the wave nature of electrons”.

In 2022, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F Clauser, and Anton Zelliger “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
W.D.Clinger 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 30th January 2023, 01:39 PM   #1271
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
The fact that someone has been awarded a Nobel doesn't mean that one photon could be hokk pokk in many different places at the same time.

The argument, in all its simplicity, is extremely stupid.

But there are enough of these silly claims in modern theories.

Have developed quite a spaghetti monster = Expanding space + curving space + rippling space + bubbling space + rotating space + extra spatial dimensions + dark matter which is different than observable but still has this inexplicable ability to attract observable matter somehow somehow + dark energy which somehow somehow gets somehow somehow expanding space to expand somehow somehow accelerating speed somehow somehow + other dark gods.

🙂
__________________
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 30th January 2023, 02:15 PM   #1272
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So do you think that one photon can be in many places at the same time?

If you really think that could be possible, then I know with 100 percent certainty that I shouldn't waste another second of my time on you.

First and again it doesn't matter what I, you or anyone thinks or believes. What matters is if the projections of the model match experimental observations, which they do. Second, that's not actually what the theory says, it is simply that in order to determine the probability of finding a photon at some point at some time you have to consider all possible paths. While that is a popular pop science explanation, that it is in more than one location, there is no way to know that the emitted photon is in either, both or none or those places at any time or that the one eventually detected is the one that left the emitter. All one can say is that the one detected has the same energy and momentum as the one emitted.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
By the way.

The ability of expanding atomic nuclei to recycle expanding dark energy can be altered by an external factor.

It is about whether the expanding dark energy pushing out of the expanding atomic nucleus pushes the dark energy pushing past the nucleus away more strongly than it is pushed towards the atomic nucleus.

That is, does it bend towards the core or does it push past the core or is the energy pushing out of the core even able to push the dark energy pushing towards the core so that part of it pushes past the core.

This determines what charge the expanding atomic nucleus has.

And an external factor can therefore change that reservation.

So, anyway, just answer this. So do you think that one photon can be in many places at the same time?

🤔
So again your "dark energy pushing" does whatever it needs to do to remain completely irrelevant?

An atomic nucleolus is always positively charged. The charge of the atom, though, that can be positive, negative or neutral.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the Rutherford gold foil experimentWP.

Again your assertions are in direct contradiction to experimental evidence.
__________________
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 3rd February 2023, 09:54 AM   #1273
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-univer...ransition.html

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
Is there something wrong with our picture of the early universe?
Do we need new physics?
"So, the phase transition model is based on the fact that the universe does not behave as the Standard Model tells us. It may sound a little scientifically crazy to suggest that something is wrong with our fundamental understanding of the universe; that you can just propose the existence of hitherto unknown forces or particles to solve the Hubble tension.

"But if we trust the observations and calculations, we must accept that our current model of the universe cannot explain the data, and then we must improve the model. Not by Discarding it and its success so far, but by elaborating on it and making it more detailed so that it can explain the new and better data," said Martin S. Sloth, adding, "It appears that a phase transition in the dark energy is the missing element in the current Standard Model to explain the differing measurements of the universe's expansion rate.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Therein lies the problem of today's physicists and cosmologists.

Unable to let go of their current flawed theories, they desperately try to patch them up with dark gum.

Well, these guys already have ideas in the right direction.

They should coolly give up the space, which will affect the events.

Space should be left alone and let it be just a 3D stage that does not affect the events. Even Newton understood this 🙂

Ok, read this about the same story 🙂

Many bubbles crashing into each other
"One must imagine that bubbles arose in various places in the early universe. They got bigger and they started crashing into each other. In the end, there was a complicated state of colliding bubbles, which released energy and eventually evaporated," said Martin S. Sloth.

The background for their theory of phase changes in a bubbling universe is a highly interesting problem with calculating the so-called Hubble constant; a value for how fast the universe is expanding. Sloth and Niedermann believe that the bubbling universe plays a role here.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

There is already an idea there 🙂

They should just understand that the visible universe expanding in space still consists of a relatively new 3D space-dispersing/expanding energy field and these other "bubbles" are the remnants of extremely old 3D space-dispersing/expanding "bubbles".

That is, the remnants of really really old energy fields scattered/expanded in space, the energy of which pushes through the expanding visible universe in 3D space very, very fast. In one moment.

And this extremely fast energy of all the background is the energy that continues to accelerate the expansion of our particles expanding in space outward into the already existing space 🙂

So I have already figured this out some time ago. 🙂

Read more about how the universe really works 🙂

Did Albert Einstein lead physicists and cosmologists on a 100-year delusion? Einstein was wrong?



Peace and love.
All the best to everyone.
Savorinen
🙂
__________________
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 3rd February 2023, 09:57 AM   #1274
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Earth is activated again after 16 calmer days

The previous activation took place on January 18, 2023.

At that time, the Earth was in the region between the Moon and Mars.

I assume that the nuclei of atoms expand and circulate the expanding dark energy in zillions of separate unregistered expanding condensations which combine / are created under suitable conditions to create new registerable particles such as electrons and photons. They too would naturally consist of this space-dispersing / expanding energy / pushing force.

Expanding dark energy from other planets would be pushed through the expanding Earth so that dark energy pushed directly towards the expanding quarks would push inside the expanding quarks and be absorbed into their internal motion / energy.

During alignments, these expanding densities of dark energy would push through each other again and again as corresponding expanding densities of dark energy pushed against each other.

Pushing through each other, they would interact with each other strongly and thus the energy in them would be dispersed over a larger area of space.

Because of that, the encounter with the following densifications pushing against it would increase, etc.

Because of this, less of this dark energy would be pushed through the expanding Earth when the Earth is e.g. in the region between the Moon and Mercury.

It will come true today.

That's energy on a small scale and e.g. for cells.

Nowadays it is already known that people go to bed later during the full moon, wake up earlier and are more active.

The full moon supervises – the results are similar regardless of the living environment
https://www.avaruus.fi/uutiset/tahti...ymparisto.html

"As the full moon approaches, people go to bed later and sleep for a shorter time. A new study compared the sleep rhythms of hundreds of people living in different parts of the world."

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Now that the Earth has not been in the area between the Moon and another planet, nor two planets, nor the Moon and the Sun from the 16th day and the first activation is by the Moon and Mercury, it is interesting to monitor your own state of alertness.

I've been feeling tired for some reason for a few days.

Ok, the activations continue interestingly on 5.2, when there is a full moon so that right after we are also in the area between the Moon and Saturn from the morning of 6.2.

That is, 5 – 6.2 is more small-scale energy available to the cells than normal.

Let's see how you sleep on the night between Sunday and Monday.

In this video, I go through the spring 2023 activations.


In the video, I tell you why there is a great chance for a Tornado Outbreak on February 9 – 10. In the USA, the schedule is somewhat different, so let's be more specific about that, 8-9 days in February, that Tornado Hässäkkä. I correctly predicted the January tornado outbreak. Was the alignment at that time by chance or was I perhaps on the right track 🤔

At least the end of 2022 went very much as I had predicted. Here on my New Suomi blog too 🙂

Of course, already 6.2 may well be favorable conditions for tornadoes.

The dark energy originating from Saturn pushes towards the Earth in such a way that it also meets the dark energy originating from the Sun "almost" all the way to the Earth.

In March, Saturn affects just before the full moon, and right after the full moon, it's Neptune's turn, where dark energy has the longest journey of the planets in the Solar System.

And so the dark energy from Neptune meets the dark energy from the Sun and the Earth for a long time.

It is interesting to monitor the temperatures of the polar regions around March 8.

A year ago, it was especially warm there when, according to my view, the Earth had been activated several times during four days.


🤔🤔🤔🤔

Yeh, I assume that after the alignments there will be rain with a delay.

There is still some work to be done here regarding what the delays are.

Then find out here where the rains will come from. That's why it's also difficult. But yes, there have been a lot of long dry periods in various regions of the Earth and then heavy rains and floods in small areas.

I assume that there would be more snowfall now than in the last 16 days.

It's interesting to follow the next long segment without alignments. In the area between Mars and the Moon, we are on 14.2 and from there it goes until the 6th of March before the next activation.

Because of this, I foresee only one more brisk snowfall for a couple of days at the end of February.

This was realized by the end of January.

Could it be this clear?

Hardly, but you never know.

Snowstorms in the USA were not monitored for January, but spring 2020 and 2022 apparently progressed in cycles that can be connected to these alignments 🤔 spring 2021 not so clearly, because Mars is on a different side of the Solar System than the gas planets. The same situation as this spring.

Let's follow the situation.

Peace and love.

Savorinen

🙂
__________________
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 3rd February 2023, 11:45 AM   #1275
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,665
More predictions of stuff that meteorologists are already talking about.

How about predicting something nobody expect?
__________________
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 3rd February 2023, 01:39 PM   #1276
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
More predictions of stuff that meteorologists are already talking about.

How about predicting something nobody expect?
Do meteorologists predict several months ahead when there will be many tornadoes in one day, like i do?

https://youtu.be/vaPJUMKPefk

Years ahead?

Hundreds of years ahead?

🤔
__________________
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 Yesterday, 02:12 AM   #1277
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,665
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Do meteorologists predict several months ahead when there will be many tornadoes in one day, like i do?
You are predicting the trivial, and I am not going to waste any effort to track precise forecasts, and match them with your nonsense. If you really want to pursuit this, you should make a list of predictions - precisely WHAT you predict; WHEN you predicted it with references - and write them here for easy reference. Nobody here is interested in your YouTube videos. And then you can look up the relevant meteorological forecasts, and show that these tornadoes are a surprise to science.

Quote:
Years ahead?

Hundreds of years ahead?
__________________
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 Today, 01:38 PM   #1278
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-univer...ransition.html

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
Is there something wrong with our picture of the early universe?
Do we need new physics?
"So, the phase transition model is based on the fact that the universe does not behave as the Standard Model tells us. It may sound a little scientifically crazy to suggest that something is wrong with our fundamental understanding of the universe; that you can just propose the existence of hitherto unknown forces or particles to solve the Hubble tension.

"But if we trust the observations and calculations, we must accept that our current model of the universe cannot explain the data, and then we must improve the model. Not by Discarding it and its success so far, but by elaborating on it and making it more detailed so that it can explain the new and better data," said Martin S. Sloth, adding, "It appears that a phase transition in the dark energy is the missing element in the current Standard Model to explain the differing measurements of the universe's expansion rate.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

Therein lies the problem of today's physicists and cosmologists.

Unable to let go of their current flawed theories, they desperately try to patch them up with dark gum.
So what's your "dark energy pushing" then, if not your own "dark gum" when you don't even have a theory?

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post

Well, these guys already have ideas in the right direction.

They should coolly give up the space, which will affect the events.

Space should be left alone and let it be just a 3D stage that does not affect the events. Even Newton understood this 🙂

Ok, read this about the same story 🙂

Many bubbles crashing into each other
"One must imagine that bubbles arose in various places in the early universe. They got bigger and they started crashing into each other. In the end, there was a complicated state of colliding bubbles, which released energy and eventually evaporated," said Martin S. Sloth.

The background for their theory of phase changes in a bubbling universe is a highly interesting problem with calculating the so-called Hubble constant; a value for how fast the universe is expanding. Sloth and Niedermann believe that the bubbling universe plays a role here.”

🤔🤔🤔🤔

There is already an idea there 🙂

They should just understand that the visible universe expanding in space still consists of a relatively new 3D space-dispersing/expanding energy field and these other "bubbles" are the remnants of extremely old 3D space-dispersing/expanding "bubbles".

That is, the remnants of really really old energy fields scattered/expanded in space, the energy of which pushes through the expanding visible universe in 3D space very, very fast. In one moment.

And this extremely fast energy of all the background is the energy that continues to accelerate the expansion of our particles expanding in space outward into the already existing space 🙂

So I have already figured this out some time ago. 🙂

Read more about how the universe really works 🙂
Again it doesn't work, we don't find that everything's expanding or moving away from each other but we do find bound systems moving away from each other. That's consistent with mainstream theories and inconsistent with your often just self-inconsistent musings.


Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Did Albert Einstein lead physicists and cosmologists on a 100-year delusion? Einstein was wrong?



Peace and love.
All the best to everyone.
Savorinen
🙂
Fine, then show where he was wrong (where the theory doesn't match the data) instead of just your misunderstanding being wrong.
__________________
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 Today, 01:50 PM   #1279
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Do meteorologists predict several months ahead when there will be many tornadoes in one day, like i do?

https://youtu.be/vaPJUMKPefk

Years ahead?

Hundreds of years ahead?

🤔
Looks like that video was just uploaded 1/23/23. Exactly what tornadoes did it predict and when?
__________________
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
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 07:52 PM.
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.