It's not religion bashing by any means. I simply stated that it's almost always religious folks who claim that the Earths Observable Universe is unique somehow which is due to their belief that the Earth is special and not grounded in actual science. People are free to believe whatever they so desire, I however simply deal in scientific evidence. If one claims the Universe outside of the Observable Universe is different then I request proof of these claims. I can claim that the Universe looks the same beyond our own Observable Universe and can provide plenty of evidence to support that belief. Those claiming the opposite cannot provide any evidence whatsoever therefore I dismiss their claims as false. It's classic Occam's Razor.
I did tell you it was difficult to understand. I am not placing two points of 0 dimension in the same place, I am placing a point of 0 dimension next to a point of 0 dimension to create dimension X. Next to being the key there..... Loss rate I assume , things to tend to have an equal loss to equal gain to retain equilibrium state. I thought it was self explanatory , have you ever observed an object moving away from you and it visually contracts and looks smaller the further it travels away ? That is the transverse of the inverse. In fields they get ''thicker'' nearer the core because they the field is less spread out. Friction is two surfaces rubbing or causing drag on each other. heat is a product of action where kE does work. When an atom is in vibration it is in a state of constant contraction and expansion be the pE (c) being divided by the entropy S . S is entropy and I used it in a thread to answer a scientist (i think he was a scientist). The formula just says that a ''sponge'' has a max amount of ''water'' it can hold.
This is the basic and minimal criteria required for any report submitted for peer review in scientific circles. You may feel it is overly complicated and unnecessary but if you wish to be taken at all seriously you will at least follow these guidelines. Likely you will also find the process clarifies your thoughts and makes clear any errors before others see them. As offered I will review your work and offer edits before submission.
When the expanding bodies eventually expand into the non-observable Universe, we can with a certainty know that the non-observable universe is very little different to what we observe now . We will know with a certainty that galaxies exist in there.
Is it ok with the moderators if I continue my paper with help in this thread? tecoyah: I need to do it in this format from your link ? Title: One Sentence Summary: Authors: Affiliations: Abstract: Main Text: References and Notes Acknowledgements: I have no affiliates or acknowledgements? Is that a problem?
Well, if you have a 0 dimensional point 'next' to a 0 dimensional point, you haven't added them together, but you have created a vector. And there is existing mathematics to deal with that, in fact they play a key role in general relativity. Now, you repeated dimension X, which seems made up. So, I also see you added some things about an 'n-field' which you seem to have made up as well and haven't defined. So, let's try this. Forget about all of this for now, and go back in your theory to it's most basic components. Go back to the first place in your theory that diverges from conventional science and from which you have built some of these other things (such as the n-field). That way we don't have to spend lots and lots of time defining things you have defined yourself, then we can work up and build the rest of your theory from there.
Now, I'm not a scientist and have never submitted a paper, but from what I understand, isn't there a pretty good chance that he might get sucked in by one of those predatory journals?
OK, let me think back! In the beginning I approached science over a probability problem of Texas Holdem poker. They insisted I was wrong which really pissed me off. So then I decided to investigate science to see if they were wrong. After reading several articles and watching countless you-tube videos, I soon started to know science. So I started questioning what I was learning, I asked lots of awkward questions about science to science forums, mostly they banned me before giving me a direct answer. This pissed me off even more which started to make me determined, I then became passionate about it and some of what I learnt and was learning was just not quite right. I could ''see'' right through it . I am the student whom questions everything taught if it does not sound right. So anyway after a few years of proper forums I came across a forum called the bad science forum, this is a bit of a mockery forum but it was there where I first really started to have my own notions based on what I had already learnt about science. This forum just let me ''run'' and did not ban me which helped me develop my notions . I think light was my first subject and then my poker theory which involved XYZ. My first basic notion was that space is transparent, from this came all my ''knowledge''.
Ok.. but, I'm not really talking about from a chronological standpoint. What is your most fundamental theory that diverges from scientific consensus?
I think it as to be about visible light and dark. I call this pretty fundamental . The present definition of darkness is the absence of light That is incorrect , darkness is a visual property of an object.
Well, you have to get more fundamental than that. Because well, light obviously changes the brightness of an object. So, you have to explain that theory in more detail.
You are correct, light changes the brightness of an object, without light the object is dark in appearance. The dark appearance of the object is the objects original visual state without light, visually dark a property of the object. Darkness is not the absent of light, darkness is the original visual of the object. I am not sure you are grasping what I said, I will put it another way If you are in a cellar with no windows and no lights turned on, it is not dark in the cellar, only the cellar walls are dark.
The cellar wall is illuminated by cause and affect. The space between your eyes and the wall does not change in appearance with the lights on or off. It always remains transparent and has no affect on the light permeating through it.
So you understand that darkness is not the absence of light ? Most forums tell me I am wrong darkness ˈdɑːknəs/ noun 1. the partial or total absence of light.
If the lights are off the space is transparent, if the lights are on space is transparent. If things are transparent we can see through them, they are not opaque. Do you agree?
That air allows visible light to pass through it is well understood. And the cause and effect of the wall reflecting light making it brighter is also well understood, and in fact seems to be exactly what you are saying doesn't happen.
I think you are missing the point, people think the space changes in appearance and goes dark . Because it is defined darkness is the absence of light. You could remove all the matter from the Universe and it would still not be dark.
