Space is not expanding!

Discussion in 'Science' started by Equality, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:21 AM.

  1. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    22,906
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    these threads make me happy.
     
    Equality likes this.
  2. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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 at 5:54 PM
  3. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    10,260
    Likes Received:
    2,422
    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.
     
  4. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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''.
     
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    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.
     
  6. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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 at 6:28 PM
  7. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    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.
  8. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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 at 6:40 PM
  9. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  10. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
  11. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,850
    Likes Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not since Newton have scientists not needed Calculus and even more advance math to deal with the equations that express the laws of nature and to deal with them as in for example making prediction base on them.

    In fact Newton was one of the developers of that branch of mathematics in order to deal with his own equations so no you can not have an understanding of the physical sciences beyond the pre-newtons era without the math.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  12. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,850
    Likes Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course you do not need an advance understanding of mathematics before being able to challenge or adding to the current theories of physical sciences LOL.

    It been forty years or so since I needed to deal with such equations in college and I can still give myself a headache even thinking about them.

    Thank god as an engineer I did not normally needed to deal with anything worst then Maxwell equations from time to time in my career.


     
  13. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    686
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then publish your claims in a paper and present it for peer review by REAL Scientists and Astrophysicists in the field, not on a political forum where there are probably only a handful of people who even have the basic understanding of physics to interpret what you are even talking about.

    People do make mistakes, even Einstein. But as of right now your claims are in direct contradiction to science and in order to prove that YOU are right and EVERYBODY else is wrong then you are going to have to come up with some convincing evidence.

    I'm sorry but just simple logic makes your claims hard to believe. Just stepping completely out of the box if nearly all professionals in a field universally disagree with "you" then it's probably not them who are all wrong....it's more than likely "you".

    What credentials to you possess to make such claims? Do you have any education in the field? BS, MS, PhD? Do you work in the field? Are you a student in the field?
     
    Derideo_Te and BillRM like this.
  14. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    686
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have anything written for any of the Postulate's? Right now what I see are claims being made with no evidence and what seems like explanations coming later.

    On a different note I believe I may have figured out why you are making these claims and BELIEVING them to be true. You have openly stated that you do not understand Calculus but you understand Physics and do not feel as though you need a thorough understanding of advanced mathematics to understand the mechanics of the Universe.

    Physics and Calculus go hand in hand and understanding Physics goes WELL ABOVE basic Calculus. So you literally cannot "know physics quite well" if you don't even understand basic Calculus.

    I'm sorry but that statement right there completely discredits any "theory" you can bring forth. You do not have the education in the field necessary to even come up with a theory let alone disprove widely accepted theories by the greatest scientific minds in history.

    The Universe not working the way you think it should is directly correlated to your lack of understanding of Physics and Mathematics. In spite of your claims, no, you do not have a good grasp of Physics if you don't understand Calculus which explains why you are making these claims about debunking actual science.
     
    Derideo_Te and BillRM like this.
  15. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    26,860
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    can your intellect grasp this simple explanation of the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The even offer evidence to support the OBSERVATION.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/space-is-not-expanding.523468/

    wrap your mind around that one.
     
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If the density of space increases, that appears as an expansion of space.
    So, paradoxically, it could actually be a contraction of space into a denser area that is causing the apparent expansion of observable space.

    Let me explain this, the denser space is, the more time it takes for objects to traverse through it. Therefore it appears like there is more space between objects (because there actually is). To really grasp this, you need to understand space as a substance and not as an unchanging fixed distance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM
  17. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I do have some more that is written and have supporting evidence with it that uses present information. I do not believe my notions are true, the objective reality and physics shows them to be true. Science of today puts far to much empathy into maths, Faraday and even Einstein had the notions long before they had did any maths. If we removed the maths from science would physical process stop? of course not.
    Semantic corrections does not alter any present maths.

    I can show all my notions to be true , you are correct though I need to send it off somewhere.


    Here is some more of my paper:

    The Nature of time.

    Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity.

    I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic

    '' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4
    Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5
    We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''.


    I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity

    ''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''.

    This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment.

    I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment

    ''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.''


    Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein.

    However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass?
    In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information.
    Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the direction of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed.
    This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that another observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them .
    This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox.

    It is said in thought that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and it is said they had aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one.

    Ok, let us consider this in respect to the twins and consider two proposition statements.

    proposition 1 : twin one's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p)

    proposition 2: twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q)

    conclusion : (p?q)?(q?p)?(p?? q)

    p implies q and q implies p which implies p and q are equal and equivalent statements.

    From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion.

    model of relativity twins.jpg



    I can't post the model here or the logical equation because of forum format. In the next part of the paper which i can not post the models shows the Lorentz length contractions to be incorrect. In short Einsteins big mistake is working with a length of time that is a lot longer than time. Using a shorter length of time in the light clock experiment, shows no time dilation or length contraction because quite simply there is no length to dilate or contract.


    more paper:

    Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a clock that is identical to a clock on the carriage. Both clocks tick at the frequency of one time Planck per tick.
    Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous.
    In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}.
    This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck. If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion.
    Evidentally if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one, twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them and synchronous too twin one. The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negliable length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology.

    I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock

    ''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.''

    I have the models that also show very simply no time dilation of the overhead flying spaceship. So Mr moderator, you yourself can answer the next question,


    If your next moment of now is immediately ahead of you with no pause or ''gaps'' between now moments, quite clearly there is no length to contract, so how could you possibly have a length contraction or time dilation with no length to contract?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018 at 5:27 AM
  18. Equality

    Equality Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No, to grasp the space fabric you have to realise that the fabric occupies space in the form of Q.F.S (quantum field solidity). If you want to experience Q.F.S for yourself , push two likewise polarities together .
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018 at 5:36 AM
  19. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Reduce the vacuum coefficient energy to zero and space ceases to exist.
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,952
    Likes Received:
    2,854
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thread Win....troll game over.
     

Share This Page