Ok, I will find some quiet time later to re-write my abstract with about 125 words or more using your link as guidance Thanks.
Right, but I feel like I have heard of one of those journals publishing a paper that was just the phrase 'stop contacting me' 800 times in the proper format or something like that. My point being that I'm 90% sure that there is a mental issue here which would leave him very vulnerable to that kind of exploitation. I don't know how it works, it probably isn't a huge issue in this context, and I'm sure he will never get to the point of having something to submit, but, just an ethical concern that crossed my mind.
A mental issue! of course I have a few mental issues such as anxiety but that does not mean I can't think . I think all the best scientists are considered a little nutty, this is because we are different in our thinking to the norm. That is why we get results, we do not get results without thinking beyond the limits sometimes. They use to think the world was flat and you say I am nutty lolz. ''You'' think time slows down and you think I am nutty. I am the one correcting things so that makes me less nuts than those who believe in those things. It is good to get a little crazy sometimes.......
In preparing my abstract I have reviewed the advice of the link provided. It says this : So is it a good idea if I break it down 1)Abstracts of Research Articles and Reports should explain to the general reader why the research was done 2)what was found and why the results are important. 3)They should start with some brief BACKGROUND information: a sentence giving a broad introduction to the field comprehensible to the general reader, 4)and then a sentence of more detailed background specific to your study. 5)This should be followed by an explanation of the OBJECTIVES/METHODS and then the RESULTS. 6)The final sentence should outline the main CONCLUSIONS of the study, in terms that will be comprehensible to all our readers. General :The Abstract is distinct from the main body of the text, and thus should not be the only source of background information critical to understanding the manuscript. Please do not include citations or abbreviations in the Abstract. The abstract should be 125 words or less. For Perspectives and Policy Forums please include a one-sentence abstract. If I ''set'' my layout of abstract in that numbered order filling in each ''section'' in order and to what it says do in that section, is this what you require me to do with my abstract? Is number 3 the starting point ?
Here's the thing: scientists are guessing and messing around and drawing nice salaries to do so. They have to look busy to justify a paycheck. Nobody's been out there to take any kind of measurements.
I intend to submit his paper to a well respected and prominent publication for peer review. I can guarantee it will never go beyond this stage as if even someone as minimally capable as myself did the review it would die instantly. Primarily I just want to see the "Paper" he brags of and help him as I review it myself before submission.
Personally I think space is something and not nothing, and that it is expanding. But I'm better off gone speckled trout fishing (if it wasn't so cold) than argue the point.
Actually we see EM in all manners of wavelengths using instruments created by our ingenuity and hands. We are not limited by our eyes and that part of our brain which interprets those signals from the retina. In fact most of our advances in those related fields come via instruments more accurate and sensitive than those we are born with. From telescopes, to microscopes, to particle accelerators and more we advance our knowledge of the cosmos both outer and inner space.
The space between an object and it's shadow isn't completely dark because light reflects off other things around it partially illuminating it such as dust in the air or the surface of the ground or whatever else is near it. If an object moved between the space between the stars then it gets partially illuminated by the light of the stars. You "see" things due to the reflected electromagnetic radiation in that particular wavelength, IE visible light. I agree with you to some extent, there are plenty of things in the cosmos that you cannot "see" with your human eyeballs but that doesn't mean they aren't there. If you could magically fly around in space then there are some cold Brown Dwarfs that you could smack right in to and you wouldn't even see them because they are too far away from any light source to reflect any visible light and you don't have IR eyeballs. Being able to see something in visible light would require it to be close enough to something emitting visible light for that light to reflect off of it enough for you to see it with your human eyes. I suppose your statement is correct(ish). The photons travelling from distant stars are still there emitting throughout the cosmos but in order for humans to see them they must first reach our eyeballs. Yet just because they haven't yet reach our eyeballs doesn't mean they aren't still there travelling through the cosmos. When looking at a distant star and something passes in front of it then you would see it illuminate because that object has gotten between you are that light beam on it's way to your receptors bouncing off of it an illuminating it. Sort of like the old brain teaser of if a tree falls in the middle of the woods and nobody hears it does it make a sound? Darkness is a term coined by humans in regards to our own personal perceptions of things due to our own biological limitations. But the coined definition of darkness is the absence of light. Light = photons. Without photons there is no light and without light there is darkness from the human perspective and we are the ones who coined the term so if you removed all visible light photons from the Universe then yes the Universe would be completely dark by our human definition of the term. I fail to see how this is "re-writing science" though. It sounds like you are arguing the definition of the term darkness which is nothing more than a word we humans made up to describe something the way we did with all other nouns...
I am sorry Mr moderator, you are not being objective and looking at the subjective. The objective is that if you remove all the photons from the universe the Universe would still not be dark. What you observe and you have just stated is ostensibly. It appears to be dark but is not necessarily dark. And my whole paper and argument is mainly about semantics . That is why I feel I do not need maths. Visible light is only that of substance/EM interaction. The light you see on your detectors/devices is that of the device. Imagine if you were floating around in a void. To you it would appear dark, but the actual objectiveness is that the space is neither dark or light, it is clear and transparent. Back to the cellar, shine a laser dot on the cellar wall, you can see the dot because the space between eye and wall is not opaque, it is not dark, it is clear like gin. Or imagine yourself swallowed by the invisible man. The darkness of space is an optical illusion. The wave-length of electromagnetic radiation traversing through space is λ=0 because +F=λ
People arguing about things they have zero control over and that do not effect their lives directly are acting sad/silly, IMO. Who gives a **** if it is expanding, contracting, happy, sad, young, old? None of this will have ANY direct effect on anyone's life who is alive today. Or for generations to come. Science is great...and vital. But sometimes, it just gets downright silly. And save the objections to this...I will not read them. I have a life, you see.
Darkness is a property of objects and when you shut your eyes. Space does not alter in appearance with or without photons. You are not blind in the ''dark'' , there is just nothing you can see, just like between the distant stars. The easy way to look at this is to remove us from the picture and consider space without being fooled by our own senses and perception. We already know that the permeability of space is µ o and space does not oppose any force on the electromagnetic radiation traversing through it, allowing it to permeate isotropic freely in linear form . We already know by the Doppler affect that -F= a longer λ and +F= a shorter λ. So F=0 must result in λ=0 for without opposing force there can be no linear compression to create a λ. The sky cannot be blue because of a scattering, the sky is blue because of gravitational pressure and quantum field solidity. Our earths electromagnetic field is a solid relative to other electromagnetic fields. Each point of a field having dynamic density relative to other fields. My N-field and n-field will explain this when I can be bothered to write it up properly. Why I am at it I suppose I will give you the gravity mechanism and it is : N↔N Because m=N N=(q1+q2)
This is contrary to standard belief, but one never knows. Can it expand ad infinitum? And what is infinity anyway? Think there was this genius (as told by Axel in one of his great books) that was on the cusp of an epiphany concerning infinity before he went mad. Seems like all the geniuses of the world are rewarded with a mental breakdown when challenging reality's most daunting questions. (see: Nietzsche)
Darkness is nothing more than a term made up by human beings. Since it is us humans who make up these definitions we are free to define them from OUR perspective which is what we do. For example lets say we are standing in a silent room with a dog. Standing in the corner is a guy with one of those dog whistles and he starts blowing the whistle non stop. The dog obviously starts going crazy but the room is silent to us humans. Why? Because we humans are not biologically equipped to hear that particular frequency but the dog is. So is the room silent? Yes, to us it is. Is the room actually silent? No it's not. The definition of silence is the complete absence of sound, a definition coined by humans so we apply that definition from OUR perspective. And "sound" is subjective depending on what type of receptor you have. Sound waves are not subjective, they are either there or they aren't, but whether or not you can hear the SOUND depends on the type of hardware you have. So if human beings can't hear the SOUND then we consider that "silent" whether sound waves are actually present or not. People also claim that space is silent. "Nobody can hear you scream". Well there are sound waves in space, YOU just can't hear them. If you were suspended in a gas cloud in space that is actively making noise via sound waves your human ears wouldn't be sensitive enough to pick up those sound waves. Does that mean that no sound waves a present? Absolutely not, it just means you can't hear them. So is the middle of a gas cloud in space silent? Yes, is the middle of a gas cloud in space silent? No. All of these terms and definitions are subjective based on the perspective of human beings. And since it is us human beings who make up the terminology to describe things we do so from our perspective.
Infinite is not hard to understand, it is just forever. There is actually only two questions about boundaries that leads to one answer of infinite.
But our perspective alone is not objective science. You quite clearly understand the subtle differences. But from a science perspective, these subtle differences make all the differences. If we can go back into the cellar with the light turned off, from a human perspective it is dark, from a science perspective it is never dark because we can detect infra red radiation by device and also cmbr exists in the cellar space. The cellar is without enough magnitude and intensity of electromagnetic radiation but is not without electromagnetic radiation of some form. From a space perspective, the space is always ''gin'' clear. But anyway definition is important and having the wrong definitions can only lead to confusion and ambiguity. I define darkness : 1)A visual property of objects when the object is not illuminated with enough magnitude and intensity of electromagnetic radiation. 2)When you close your eye lids. I define time dilation a Timing dilation 1) An inconsistency in timing of the measurement of the caesium atom frequency. (Clocks measure time indirectly). I define time : 1) A quantifiable constant measurement indirectly proportional to ageing. The only property space has is dimensions. Space can not be altered , created or destroyed.
You see with your brain what's on the screen which represents what data the 'machine' is sending. The machine sending the data is no different in essence than your eyes which are machines built to gather photons. A telescope allows for the gathering of more photons that hit your retina or is relayed digitally to a screen and other data collecting machines which you then 'see' or perhaps perceive is a better word. If you cut the optic chiasma then you don't perceive the outside world visually. The entire 'machine' must be working properly. We build better machines that are more sensitive and amplify data in many different and ingenious ways in order to study our universe. Without them we might as well be back in the stone age.
