Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum only 3 ingredients are needed to make a universe

the galaxies are moving away from each other , I think you have
admitted that already.

but the theory claims that the galaxies are being moved by
the space expanding.

the boat in the water is moved by the current of the water , and the current of the water is mainly caused by solar radiation.

so when a galaxy in the space is moved by the expanding space what is the cause of the expanding space that moves the galaxy?


ie...




what is the energy of the expanding space that moves it?

and where does the expanding space get the energy from in order for the expanding space to expand?

I know this will sound stupid to you , but does the energy come from an explosion such as the big bang?

if not then could you please tell me where the energy comes from.

also , you have already mentioned something about the total of the energy of the cosmos , but what I need to know is something
more like what is the process that is involved.

I know that the reason that the expanding space theory
was invented was because an explosion being the reason that
space is expanding was seen as a threat to einsteins theories
so that is the reason that I would like to know how the process is supposed to work.

you seem to know a good deal about it , and that is why Im
asking , because surely you wouldn't have skipped the first most important chapter that explains the foundation of the theory where the how it supposed to work is printed.

in a way you have said it , but it is really very vague.



that isn't much of an explanation , unless you are speaking
about an initial explosion that forced everything away from
an initial point.

Actually Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted that the universe would be expanding. He didn't believe it and put in an extra bit (a cosmological constant) to make it be stable. When it was discovered that the universe actually IS expanding, in accordance with his theory, he said that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake he ever made.

So that is one more place where Einstein's theories worked, in spite of your refusal to accept that they are real. That's the thing about good scientific theories. They don't pay any attention when people claim they are wrong. They just keep on working, the way Einstein's theories have been working for a hundred years.

Bill Gill

for some reason you are avoiding my question.

you still haven't explained why the universe is expanding.



if the Einstein theories are good scientific theories
then why did they have to patch it or
prop it up with the expanding space theory?



BTW
newtons laws of motion explain why the universe is
expanding , without any need for fake math designed
to stabilize the theory.

Since his theories didn't need patching with the expanding space theory they didn't bother. As I mentioned above his theory predicted an expanding universe. The fact that the expansion of the universe was found after the theory predicted it is one more good bit of evidence (among a great many) that he was right.

Bill Gill

now that's exactly what I was saying.

I said that the expanding space theory was the patch or was a method to prop up the Einstein theories.

I didn't say that the Einstein theories were patched or changed.


the expanding space theory was needed to protect the Einstein theories.

its exactly like trying to hide a lie with more lies.

organized modern science is having to provide protection services for its biggest lies , and the only way they can protect the initial ludicrous lies is by making up more and more even bigger ludicrous lies.

the distance between galaxies is increasing , but space is not
expanding , what is being referred to as space is already there its just empty space and then the galaxies move in to the empty space that's already there , then the empty space
becomes space and distance measurements can be taken between objects in the newly occupied space.

when Im discussing this I feel as if Im trying to explain something really simple to a group of complete idiots that
have no ability to comprehend.

from what I understand about it so far
Einstein didn't believe that the universe was expanding or contracting , he initially believed it was a static universe.
and his theory that was current at that time shows it.

then some evidence came around that proved that the universe was expanding which proved his theory to be wrong.

he then added a new lie to cover up his original lie.

then more evidence came around that parts of the universe
were moving faster than the speed of light.

so being the faithful followers of the Einstein cult that they are and to avoid buying more books and having to relearn their education by attending more college classes in order to try and grasp the logic of logic the modern scientist
simply followed in einsteins footsteps and made up another
lie about the space expanding theory in order to protect his
theories and save money and time.


the theory states that objects are not moving faster than
the speed of light , the space is expanding faster than the speed of light and the objects are just riding on the space.


I wonder if they have it the way they need it to be or will
they change it again , Im going to guess that they will either
admit to the scam or they will make up another lie in the near future.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." I think I have now adequately shown that Paul will not accept full proof of any modern scientific facts. He believes that what he wants to believe overshadows all the accumulation of scientific proof supporting SR, GR, and QM. He does not offer any evidence that they are wrong, he just claims that they are not logical and that they are made up by the scientific establishment from some ulterior motive.

Paul completely ignores the fact that modern engineering uses the results of these theories every day in designing the systems which we use throughout our lives. And there is one thing about engineers. If they get it wrong they lose their jobs. So the fact that they continue to work, and that our modern systems continue to work is pretty strong evidence that the theories which Paul denies really do work.

Bill Gill

as I recall Bill , I have asked you several times how the
space is propelled , or what propels the space that moves
the galaxies , you obviously don't know either.

because you have never answered.

so by me asking you a question that you either refuse to answer or are unable to answer does not make me wrong or you right.

it seems to me that you are just clinging to a modern science fairy tale hoping that I will just go away and not ask questions , this way you can keep your delusions intact.



and don't forget they also kill people.

but that's ok as long as the delusion continues , right?

And mostly they don't. In fact they keep their jobs because all the modern electronics that depend on QM in the design process keeps on working. Is your computer still working today? Thank the engineers that included QM in the design process. Is your GPS still working? Thank the engineers that included both QM and GR in their design process. Do you know any engineers of modern technology that don't use QM and or GR in their design process?

Ok, Gentle Readers. I think you get the idea. Paul refuses to accept that modern science exists. It is all some sort of huge (and I really mean HUGE) conspiracy. How they manage to get the millions of people involved in the conspiracy to work together I'm not sure. He doesn't recognize the old saw, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". He of course may fit in the category "some of the people all of the time".

Any way it obviously impossible to get him to admit that he may be wrong, so that is about as far as I need to go on this thread. I don't know why I bother to answer him. I guess I just keep hoping.

Bill Gill

yes , heres the list of the 10 real world applications of QM?

in another discussion I've already covered the transistor and how the folk at bell labs did not use QM in 1945!

but QM claims it , after the fact.

the list also covers several applications after the transistor that are only theoretical applications such as teleportation and instant communication , which the Einstein theories deny its possibility.




but anyway (to get back to where we were before you attempted
to evacuate the building without giving a logical explanation) is that supposed to be your explanation of how the space gets the energy to expand the space and cause the galaxies to move farther apart from each other?

or am I to believe that your free will to access or divulge
that particular information or logic in general has been denied by the modern science cult leaders.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." I think I have now adequately shown that Bill will not show any proof of any *modern scientific facts.


* modern scientific facts should not be confused with actual facts as these particular facts are not available.

By the way Paul just as an catch up on some QM we once discussed the fact a light from a torch or any light source really could be made to extinguish by injecting more power or reflecting the power in a special way which is very counter-intuitive to classic physics.

It's actually now been done now in the labs

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-strange-physics-laser.html

The interesting part now is to upscale the experiment even larger with macro entangled leds.

Again you probably won't accept it but the result is interesting no matter what you actually believe is happening. The world got very interesting post all the 2008 groundbreaking experiments which was the culmination of a decade of careful studies.

So how was I able to predict what would happen a few years in advance

For Bill S there is a message in that about the connectivity between Power and QM as we had discussed. Unfortunately it still doesn't answer the basic question about why and what is driving the process.

Not sure why Bill G is wasting time trying to convince you what is happening but the observation itself is rather interesting and if there is a GOD he has a whacky sense of humour.

I don't recall it , could you link to the post?

I could see how changing the wave pattern / frequency could cause visible light to move outside of the visible light spectrum.

but I suppose your talking about interference by a injected / separate light wave that would disrupt the pattern / frequency of the target light source.

but I want to see where we ( meaning you and me ) discussed it before.

I cant see how anything to do with light could be owned by
QM however.

It's not that important I am too lazy to go back thru that many posts I thought you would remember the discussion.

Even poor old Rede was trying to argue that what I was saying was wrong that the process of light emission is one directional and we were discussing boundary conditions of the universe.

The above experiment doesn't change the emission spectrum it stops the emission totally but again you probably won't believe it and I am not wasting my time arguing with you.

It was just interesting that a boundary condition we discussed as a sort of thought experiment some time ago had actually been done and the result was as expected.

So a few things accomplished by SR/GR

Explained the problem that the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't detect the predicted change in light speed with change in direction of motion. That was a major problem at the end of the 19th Century.

Explained the problem with the orbit of mercury. Can you explain it without GR?

Predicted that light would be influenced by gravity. That is the basis of gravitational lensing.

Predicted that the universe is not static. Einstein believed in a static universe, so thought he had made an error. Discovery that the universe is expanding showed that GR is correct.

And for QM

Explained away the fact that we don't suffer the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. This was before QM was well defined. Planck didn't really believe that what he postulated was real. He thought it was a mathematical trick to fix the problem.

Explained the photoelectric effect. Einstein used Plancks idea to explain why electrons were emitted only at discrete wavelengths when a surface was illuminated. This was the one that got him his Nobel Prize.

Led to the development of atomic weapons. All atomic weapon design is based on QM.

Bill Gill

I don't know orac , this sounds suspiciously like something
that resides in classical physics.



this wouldn't be akin to electron orbits would it?

If you want it to be .. sure why not ... who am I to deny your beliefs

There is a little joke and problem with your answer you won't get unfortunately and it is funnier not explaining ... sorry I can't resist just leaving your answer stand.

Paul will simply say they pre-dated QM

He does however have issues with time look at his byline

For the thinkers I am going to post a quote from Lubos which is very true and very relative to the discussion although most are just ignoring it. For all Marosz's stupidity he does at least realize he is injecting a preferred reference frame and violates relativity and QM something often overlooked by others promoting "classical models" of the universe. Both QM and relativity are incompatible with a preferred reference frame.



So if you want a "discrete universe" please at least realize the inevitable and try and describe what the scale and where the preferred reference frame comes from. Perhaps the scale of the reference is so large or small we haven't seen it but it has to be there.

and still no one who believes in the space expanding theory
has come forward with the explanation of why they believe the
space is expanding.

Im sure that bill believes that the things he posted were
things that gr / sr and even qm made possible , personaly I cant even start to believe any of it until the foundation is explained and Im not about to study the entire mountain of sr gr qm and all the hoopla that leads up to the expanding space theory just to find that I was right about it being a fake theory that was obviously designed to prop up earlier theories.

I can say however that the problem with mercury and its orbit
was interesting until I applied apx 5 seconds of thought to it
and realized that the difference in the calculations were most
likely due to some physical occurrence or forces that were not
accounted for using Newtonian physics.

but I cant say that the gr math looks fake like some if not all of the sr math is.

so the gr math might very well be correct , I will have a look into it , any of the so called solutions that used the fake sr math are obviously wrong because the math is fake.

and there will be problems in the future because of it fakery.

There is something really funny about all that I will leave it to you to work out what it is

I already know what is really funny about all that but I wanted
to allow you the opportunity to tell me that there was really something funny about it all and to allow you the opportunity to allow me to work out what it is , its not that I was baiting you , it could be viewed as baiting but that was not my intention

I would tell you about what has been discovered recently about
sr but I wouldn't want to spoil everyones fun.