Space is not expanding!

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

  1. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why would I need to know about tensors to discuss time and light?

    I am not a this stage doing gravity.......
     
  2. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In respect to an aether, I am discussing this elsewhere where I am trying to study Maxwell's equations.

    I have posed a question, do carrier signals traverse through the fields of bodies? In another words, if the Earth and other bodies had no pre-existing electromagnetic field, would a carrier signal still travel from the earth to the moon? Are the fields of bodies an aether for carrier signals?
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, an EM field does not effect radiation propagation in most circumstances. Though certain forms can be mitigated.
     
  4. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A notion I am pondering over lately is I am considering that the carrier signal is not emitted but rather the existing fields of space fluctuate from a linear to wave like. It seems like a carrier signal but instead is the field ''vibrating''.
    You know like drop a stone in a pond and the pond ripples.

    added- so if you can imagine a straight line and then at one end we emit some energy, the line then waves as the energy is transferred by the line.

    p.s field lines are divided by likewise polarity. They can not touch.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have noted what may possibly be your primary and underlying issue in all of this interesting discussion. It would seem you are so opposed to established scientific understanding and agreed upon theory that you create issues with little or no possibility and champion them as breakthroughs disregarding the realities established over decades and centuries.
    It would seem you have an opinion of yourself that is not shared outside of your mind.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
    Jonsa and BillRM like this.
  6. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The problem with that is once you find one error then from this error you can find other errors. I am not opposed to all science at all, there is lots and lots of great science. To be honest I hardly think a correction in semantics is a major breakthrough. I understand the science I learnt and simply can see some errors in the thinking.
     
  7. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To explain with ease let me point out some errors with simplicity.

    The Big Bang theory just expands the firmament

    There is no distant/length to contract between now and ''now''

    Visible light and the darkness (the absence of light) do not apply to space , understand this :
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...y-be-a-last-total-solar-eclipse/#7f8fd331316a
    You will see a pic of the moon is shadow, the space between the observer and moon is not dark, only the surface of the moon is dark.

    Space is not made of anything so cannot expand
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what I mean...here ya' go:


    The Big Bang theory just expands the firmament There is no firmament unless you can prove there is.

    There is no distant/length to contract between now and ''now'' Now.....and NOW are separated even in this sentence.

    Visible light and the darkness (the absence of light) do not apply to space , understand this Light applies to everything it travels to or through.


    You will see a pic of the moon is shadow, the space between the observer and moon is not dark, only the surface of the moon is dark. This does not make sense, shadow is a lessening of light but light is still there or you would not see a shadow.

    Space is not made of anything so cannot expand Again you make a claim not seen in evidence. "Space" is full of matter even if you cannot see it, diffuse plasma, particles and radiation abound. What do you imagine a solar storm is....magic God farts?
     
  9. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I can 'see' you are not really a thinker or your reply would of not of been such.

    I know there is no firmament, you missed the point entirely. You know they use to think in the past there was a firmament? consider the notion that space is expanding, the edge of the observable universe being a firmament that doesn't exist. All's they are doing is expanding the ''wall'' . Start with that
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven’t.

    Lol
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I assume by "Wall" you are referring to what we cannot and do not know or see. If that is the case we call it unknown and tend to avoid making things up about it...we simply state we do not yet know. I have avoided insulting you purposefully and would appreciate the same respect in return. My ability and tendency to "Think" is well documented and often appreciated by those who do the same...
     
  12. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OP here is the problem you are going to run in to. If you have ever read any real scientific journals before you'll notice that they include one pretty huge subject that your paper does not, mathematics. Mathematics is the language used to "prove" things in Astrophysics. It is a subject that you admittedly do not understand which is why you included none in your own paper.

    Here is what will happen, if you publish your paper it WILL be critiqued and proven false by even students of science and by real world scientists alike. They will use mathematics to prove WHY your claims are incorrect. However, you will not understand why your paper is incorrect because you have openly stated that you do not understand mathematics. So you will dismiss the critiques as false and continue to claim you are correct while "they" are wrong. Even though they will have just PROVEN you wrong but you simply will not be able to understand WHY because you don't understand the mathematics used to prove you wrong.

    It will be a continuous circle getting nowhere. The bottom line is simple, mathematics proves you wrong, you don't understand mathematics, therefore you believe you are right, and nobody can tell you otherwise regardless of their credentials. So this entire endeavor becomes pointless.

    Not trying to be insulting or rude, but unless you take the time and effort to study higher level mathematics then you will never understand why what you believe is in direct contradiction of actual science. And your beliefs and your paper will forever remain trapped in the realm of pseudoscience and dismissed by the actual scientific community and dismissed.

    Some science magazines have opinion pieces that they allow readers to submit articles. You may want to research that route.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  13. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With all due respect:

    semantics
    sɪˈmantɪks/
    noun
    1. the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.

    Where in semantics does it say maths is needed? Where in my paper do I argue that any of your maths is incorrect?

    The reason I do not have maths in my paper is because there is none required of this paper. I am correcting scientific misunderstandings and I have the disadvantage that I can not upload my models that go with the paper.
    And of course like most forums, the actual contents of the paper are being completely ignored.

    added- I will ask you one thing Mr moderator, you know the thought experiment in the lorentz contraction where the light clock is used?

    Consider the same experiment but remove the distance of the carriage and make your (A) to (B) points the light travels a Planck length apart.

    So one tick per planck length.

    you will find no length contraction
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  14. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I did not mean to offend you, it is not very often I come across professional scientists, the trolls generally rule these forums and I offer you my full respect and take back my comment about thinking.

    '']I assume by "Wall" you are referring to what we cannot and do not know or see''

    Exactly that and you may be interested in that I call this the firmament of the mind.

    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.
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do like that, there is a poetry to it. A mentally illustrative way of saying "Keep an Open mind".
     
    Equality likes this.
  16. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why do we not have Olber's Paradox?
     
  17. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you
    The night sky is not dark, there is no conflict.
     
  18. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The paradox[edit]
    The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.[1]

    [​IMG]
    A view of a square section of four concentric shells
    To show this, we divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, 1 light year thick. A certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,001 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale, then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell, which is between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,001 light years away. However, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear one quarter as bright as the stars in the first shell. Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell.

    Thus each shell of a given thickness will produce the same net amount of light regardless of how far away it is. That is, the light of each shell adds to the total amount. Thus the more shells, the more light; and with infinitely many shells, there would be a bright night sky.

    While dark clouds could obstruct the light, these clouds would heat up, until they were as hot as the stars, and then radiate the same amount of light.

    Kepler saw this as an argument for a finite observable universe, or at least for a finite number of stars. In general relativity theory, it is still possible for the paradox to hold in a finite universe:[6] though the sky would not be infinitely bright, every point in the sky would still be like the surface of a star.


    It took me all of 5 seconds to easily ''see'' past this and this is the first time I have heard of it that I remember.
     
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure you quite understand the paradox. Nevertheless it is a hypothetical joke anyway.
     
  20. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I understood it, there is just no issues.
     
  21. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you had a telescope that could see for an infinite distance, through the lens you would see nothing but stars filling all the gaps, however this would be an optical illusion and you would have to account for the distances also. Now with a finite telescope you see the gaps, however the gaps are not dark, they are transparent.

    added- in a cellar with the light off the cellar space is not dark, only the walls are dark.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  22. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Dark Clouds" is a very poor description of the reality. There are few clouds but instead unlimited particles and plasma...etc...over such enormous distances the accumulated effect is to render light sources invisible to the human eye. Distance also makes a star seem a pinprick and then nothing.
    Put a baseball on the freeway and then drive for a mile, you can no longer see it is there without binoculars.
     
  23. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    6,792
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How in the hell do you study Maxwell's equations without an understanding of math to at least the second order, second degree partial differential level??????

     
  24. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hmmm, where did you find that quote from? I do not sound very coherent with that post.

    Dark clouds are because they are denser clouds that offer a greater magnitude of permitivity to light.

    And yes, the perspective view of objects plays a big part in the size of the observable Universe. If there were bigger bodies in the non-observable universe we may be able to observe them.

    If your base ball could grow equal and proportional to your journey distance, you would always observe it.
     
  25. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Olber's Paradoc doesn't say the the night sky should be dark but that it should be bright beyond imagining, indeed, brighter than the day, to which the addition of the sun's entire output would be a scarcely noticeable trifle
     

Share This Page