Space is not expanding!

Discussion in 'Science' started by Equality, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you published a paper and had it peer reviewed yet, on your debunking of Einstein, time dilation and expanding universe? If not, then :roflol: at claiming to have done so, on an anonymous internet board.
     
  2. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well I have been told to get it published, I had some advice on here to do so. My paper is very good and really does ''destroy'' Einstein. However I am a bit lazy when it comes to academic achievement.

    In other words to me, it is no big deal, I am working on gravity mechanics and quantum field theory, I consider this is more of a big deal than simple time and space mechanics.
     
  3. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, I agree 100% with both facts you have stated. Problem here is that you are trying to equate physical properties here on Earth and apply them to the Universe itself. These two things are not the same.

    Take the speed of light for example. Physics as currently understood states that nothing with mass can exceed the speed of light, basically nothing in the Universe can travel faster than the speed of light. However, for some reason the Universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old yet our own Observable Universe has a diameter of 92 billion light years and radius of roughly 46.6 billion light years. How can that be? Light itself cannot travel faster than the speed of light then how can our own Observable Universe by larger than the actual age of the Universe itself?

    Answer is simple, the Universe itself CAN and IS expanding faster than the speed of light. The spacetime between galaxies in the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. But, physics states that NOTHING can actually do that. The Universe itself doesn't have to play by your rules and has been scientifically proven and factually verified as NOT playing by the laws of physics by expanding faster than the speed of light.

    The Universe itself can also not play by your rules and "expand" into "nothing" even though that doesn't make logical sense to you.

    The claims you are making are radical and unfounded and not backed by actual scientists. You continuously use the term "fact" when your claims are nothing of the sort. If you yourself have disproved Einstein and Time Dilation as you claim then publish a paper for peer review the way all other real scientists do when making claims. Let real science vet your claims and if they prove true then you will literally win the Nobel Prize and become one of the most famous scientists in both the 20th and 21st centuries.

    Or if you would like to start smaller I can provide you with a link to an actual Astrophysics and Science forum moderated by PhD's in Astrophysics and comprised of thousands of BS, MS, and PhD level Physicists who discuss scientific theory daily. Post your theory and explanations there and get feedback from real Astrophysicists, Astronomers, and Engineers currently working in the profession.

    If you are as confident in your claims as you say then they should be brought to the attention of the scientific community.
     
    fifthofnovember and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt that you just a random guy on the internet whose best knowledge of relativity is a balloon has outsmarted the scientific community.
     
  5. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am presently on science forums, I am also banned from several science forums. One of the main reasons I am on this science forum in a political forum, is because the ''normal'' science forums are not willing to discuss anything new. They insist it is ''this'' way rather than looking at the contributors scientific vigour.
    I posted my paper on this forum, it was well received and people advised me to get it published. The problem is Sir I am a nobody, humble and afraid to be a someone. I may come across as very confident in my forum posts, but the reality is I am like a scared ''kitten''.

    I am very objective , you say

    ''I agree 100% with both facts you have stated. Problem here is that you are trying to equate physical properties here on Earth and apply them to the Universe itself. These two things are not the same.''

    then later say

    ''You continuously use the term "fact" when your claims are nothing of the sort.''


    I only use axiom facts like the two you already confirmed to be facts, physical facts. Now wasn't it Einstein who said something on the lines of the physics locally can be considered the same everywhere?
     
  6. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I learnt science and the science I learnt was inaccurate, I have corrected that science to precise axioms. There is no lies in the absolute truth.
     
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well until you publish a paper for peer review by the scientific community then your claims will continue to be dismissed by anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of Astrophysics.

    I am a member of many science forums as well and I understand the rules that their moderators have which are universal to almost all of them. Claims must be backed by science, you can't just say something and claim it as fact without providing evidence. These science forums are absolutely ready and willing to discuss new ideas as long as those ideas are backed by actual evidence and not just pure speculation. What you are doing is speculating and the evidence you have has been scientifically proven to be false. So until you gather evidence to actually PROVE your claims then yes they will be dismissed by the scientific community and rightfully so.

    Take String Theory for example. That is a theory that, although not in line with current scientific understanding, is still being researched by hundreds of physicists. Many of whom are working towards no other goal than to disprove it rather than prove it. But nonetheless it is being researched because it wasn't just some random person making a claim, it was published and brought forth for peer review and provided actual evidence for the claims.

    What you are doing is claiming that you yourself have debunked one of, if not the greatest, scientific minds in history. A claim that if proven true would completely rewrite our current understanding of physics. You cannot make such radical claims without providing VERY THOROUGH and CONVINCING evidence. The evidence that you have presented has already been proven as scientifically false. You need to find evidence that is not proven to be false already if you want your voice to be heard within the scientific community.

    You posted your paper here and claim it was well received. Well for one most people here are not Astrophysicists as far as i can tell and most have a very basic and limited understanding of science in general. The members here who have a more thorough understanding of science have dismissed your claims for all of the right reasons.

    So basically, in no attempt to be rude, your paper was well received by folks who really don't know what they are talking about in this field. Present your paper to folks who know what they are talking about in this field, real Astronomers, Astrophysicists, Engineers, etc, and get their feedback. Again, without trying to be rude, but it does neither you nor the scientific community any good for you to be applauded by a bunch of people who don't have a thorough understanding of this field.
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just can't take someone seriously who says they "destroyed" Einstein. If you actually did so, it would be the greatest scientific discovery in a century.

    Your nobel prize awaits, lol
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no no, he's "destroyed" enstein lol

    Just ask him.
     
    Derideo_Te and Distraff like this.
  10. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,183
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science already has a theory for this.. M-Theory, no one is saying this universe is the end all be all and nothing exists outside of it

    parallel universes would in fact explain Gravity
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps you should also "Learnt" English? There "Is" no reasons not to.
     
  12. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So if you find a dark area between points of light, that darkness is an illusion, for that dark spot is filled with light? Well, not when your observation reveals a lack of light. For there is a lack of light. Any galaxies and stars located in that dark spot are so far away that their light has yet to arrive at your eyes. So, there is no visible light, yet. So is your statement still true?
     
  13. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, the big bang supposedly created space time, matter. If space time, matter is what the universe is composed of, that which lies outside this physical universe, whatever it is that this space time, matter can expand into, is not space time, matter. It is other than space time, matter.

    The red shift is what is observed when an object is receding, traveling away from your point of reference. This is one of the things that evidenced the big bang theory. The universe is expanding. And not just that, but unlike an explosion which the big bang is compared to, our universe is expanding faster and faster. Picking up the speed of expansion.

    Space is just the area between objects of matter. If those objects expand outward, move away from a point of reference, the space between the objects expands in area. So in one sense it is expanding. It certainly is not shrinking. As soon as you had two objects in this universe, space is manifested. But does the space extend outside of the last object in the universe, that thing into which it is traveling and where no other piece of matter exists? And if so, it must be infinite. For as long as these balls of matter travel outward from its point of origination, there will be space for them to travel into. The finite, traveling into the infinite. The human brain has some problem with this reality of the infinite. I guess it is because we cannot create a mental image of the infinite? Only that which is finite?
     
  14. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Indeed claims must be backed by science, that is why my notions are backed by present science. All that I use in my notions are of present information. You say until I publish a paper then my claims will be dismissed, but to dismiss my claims one would have to lie. Publishing a paper doesn't make a claim true, only the claim can be true. I do however understand why you say I should present my paper to a ''better'' audience.

    You say :

    ''What you are doing is claiming that you yourself have debunked one of, if not the greatest, scientific minds in history. A claim that if proven true would completely rewrite our current understanding of physics. You cannot make such radical claims without providing VERY THOROUGH and CONVINCING evidence.''


    I have the scientific rigour to prove the debunk, it is not even difficult to understand, Einstein made a mistake . We all can make mistakes.
     
  15. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am not sure I can answer your question because your sentence structure in this instant is not very good. I am not being rude or mocking, I just do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you please re-phrase .
     
  16. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    these threads make me happy.
     
    Equality likes this.
  17. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A good read , thanks for your opinion and thoughts.

    The observable Universe is the finite, our observation is finite , our observation is expanding into an infinite space. The length of space is expanding between bodies, the space itself is not expanding like an elastic band being stretched. A mental imagine of the infinite is not that difficult, just keep placing those Chinese Dolls inside the bigger doll.

    The correct interpretation of Universal expansion is that the observable Universe is expanding and will continue to expand to a 0 point of un-observable.

    I have told science before the observable universe is going to contract .
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  18. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. A dark area in the night sky which no light is visible is still filled with light? That seems to be what you said. I replied by pointing out that that dark spot may contain galaxies and stars, whose light has yet to make it to your eyes. But as far as your eyes are concerned, there is no light in that dark spot.

    Sorry about the lacking sentence structure. I have read much worse on this forum from others, and never called them out, but perhaps my intellect can understand even poor sentence structure? That is possible. Which is kinda nice, for it makes me somehow a bit more astute, in being capable of understanding poor sentence structure. Might be a handy skill to have.
     
  19. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you for re-phrasing, if you look into the night sky between the stars you will see relative darkness, a black background of space. That dark ''spot'' is still filled with light and you are correct in that it will contain galaxies and stars that light as not reached your eyes. Also the size of the object, galaxy or star playing a role, in a perspective of observation things visually contract in volume when they travel away from us and vice versus when we travel away from the object. Objects undergoing a visual volume contraction eventually end up a 0 point, still in the line of sight but relatively too small to see. We can use a telescope or similar to magnify the image, but if the object is in visual volume contraction even a telescope can not prevent the eventually of a 0 point ''vanish''.
     
  20. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know any calculus by the way? What about physics? If you are going to tell the scientists that you are wrong then I expect that at least you know some of the nuts and bolts of what they are doing.
     
  21. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I know physics quite well, I do not know calculus although I once looked into it. I do not need to know maths to understand the correct semantics and the mechanics of the Universe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  22. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't even begin to understand the advanced physics scientists use without knowing any calculus. Even my 17 year old Cousin knows calculus.
     
    BillRM likes this.
  23. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You may be surprised but I can discuss very advanced physics and quantum mechanics. Maths serves a purpose but is not a cause and affect.

    The meaning of math and math use dependency.

    We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence and synchronise our lives. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

    It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  24. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and this is why the big bang semantics are incorrect.

    The firmament of the minds limitations.

    It is also important that we learn to deal with and accept reality, to not teach our children illusions of reality that give a sense of hope and belief not according to truth or fact. History has provided illusions in the past, once mankind thought the Earth was flat, civilisation feared falling off the horizon into an abyss. This was later to be discovered a myth and realisation that the world was ''round''. Another belief from our past, was the belief of a Firmament, a said solid dome like structure that covered the flat Earth. We this day and age simply call it the sky, knowingly we have accomplished the ability to leave our atmosphere by the mechanical ingenuity of mankind, the only Firmament that existed was the inability of thought and technology that was needed to allow this Firmament to be reached and explored.
    Whenever there is a boundary that can not be reached, whether it be by physical means or mental means, this is the unreachable boundary of the firmament of the mind. A boundary that is seemingly unreachable, a boundary that can only allow imagination and not that of facts or truths.
     
  25. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Added - To the moderator who was in discussion. This is my opening to my paper and I hope you can understand the complexity and consequence of my paper if I publish it. I would be hated.....

    Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.


    Abstract-

    This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics in a primary respect to time. Using a dialectic approach and presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking at the true values of the relativity of time that humanity has quantified. Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


    Introduction.

    Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.


    Postulate one: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed of measurement

    Postulate two: Visible light is dependent to electromagnetic radiation and substance interaction.

    Postulate three: Visible light and dark do not exist of free space.

    Postulate four: Visible darkness is a visual property of an object that is not illuminated.

    At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.



    Not even mentioning Universal expansion and my N-field theory. There is just so much to write to complete.
     

Share This Page