Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
rede

I cant seem to find the theory anywhere and that may be
part of the reason that I cant fully understand the theory
and how it is supposedly moving galaxies around.

is the theory called "the expanding space theory"?

you really cant blame me if I cant find the theory
and you two guys are explaining it differently than the
internet articles I have read.

is your explanation a secret or is it just that no one
wants to put their name on it?

anyway unless you actually have access to the written
theory and can supply a link to it , at least I now have
your definition below.

Quote:
Space is expanding everywhere - outside galaxies, inside galaxies even within the cells of your body. Galaxies retain their physical integrity due to gravity, and your body due to nuclear forces. The photon, being massless, is affected by gravity only indirectly due to the effect of mass upon the geometry of the space through which the photon passes. So, no matter where the photon happens to be it's affected by the expansion of space, i.e, its wavelength is increased over time in accordance with the Hubble constant.


Quote:
Space is expanding everywhere - outside galaxies, inside galaxies even within the cells of your body.


so far as I recall none of the articles that I have read mentioned that space inside of the human cells was expanding.

and most of the articles state that the expansion is not occurring inside a galaxy.

so , unless you or bill can supply a link to the information
where this is written down , Im afraid that I will just have to dismiss the information as heresay.

Quote:
The photon, being massless,


I have read articles that state that a photon is only referenced as being massless because its mass is really
tiny , but it still has mass.

even though a photon has a tiny amount of mass a very strong
gravity field will cause it to change its direction.

the wiki article on a photon states that a photon has a mass
of <110&#8722;18 eV/c2 , how could a massless particle have mass?
it also has an electric charge
of <110&#8722;35 e , how could a massless particle have an electric charge?

so either the person who wrote the wiki article
is wrong or you are wrong , I wonder which one?

heres the really tricky part where you seem to add some mass
in there , but if the photon does not have any mass then where does the mass come from or does the space itself have the mass somehow.

Quote:
The photon, being massless, is affected by gravity only indirectly due to the effect of mass upon the geometry of the space through which the photon passes.



Quote:
the effect of mass upon the geometry


how could the geometry be affected by a photon that has no
mass.

I suppose that you mean the shape of space when you say geometry , I couldn't figure out what that part means.

but if so , how could the shape of the massless space
affect a massless photon?

I suppose that the reason that you use this description
of why a photon can be affected by space geometry is mainly
due to the fact that you want to try and say that a photon
has no mass at all.

this way the photons will not be influenced to move the way
that the entire galaxies are moving in the expanding space theory.

but then maybe the expanding space theory doesn't need
an object to have mass in order to carry the object.

but would a object require mass in order to be an object?

the theory is absolutely fantastic and actually amazing
although Im not sure exactly what it says but what I really find hard to believe is that I cant find the theory itself , because it is supposedly so widely accepted.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul

the wiki article on a photon states that a photon has a mass
of <110&#8722;18 eV/c2 , how could a massless particle have mass?
it also has an electric charge
of <110&#8722;35 e , how could a massless particle have an electric charge?


Originally Posted By: Wiki
A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[11] and is stable.


Can you explain this discrepancy between what you say Wiki says and what I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon?

Or are you trying to confuse us by claiming that the upper limit of electron mass, based on experimental testing is the actual mass. That is the absolute maximum that electron mass could be if it had a mass. The consensus is that photons are massless but in science there are always people checking to make sure that our assumptions are correct. So far nobody has come up with anything that says that the photon does have mass.

In the meantime keep checking and you will find that the statements that the expansion of space doesn't occur in gravitationally bound systems is really just saying that the stars and galaxies in those systems aren't spreading apart. It doesn't say that the expansion of space isn't happening.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Or are you trying to confuse us


of course not , I leave that up to people such as yourself

if you look on the page again under the picture below
you will find where I copied the text from.



here are a few things said in the article that seem to say
that photons are not massless under the following subsection
of the article.

Experimental checks on photon mass


Quote:
The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question.


Quote:
If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c.


Quote:
The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 310&#8722;27 eV/c2



Quote:
Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10&#8722;18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.0710&#8722;27 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.


Quote:
Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass;


still , I would like to see what the expansion of space theory
actually says , would you happen to know where the wording
of the theory can be located , its obvious that you believe
the theory to be correct therefore you must have read the actual theory somewhere , do you remember where you read it?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Paul, in your link, under the picture, what do you think the 0 (zero) means that is to the right of and on the same line as the term "Mass" and likewise to the right of and on the same line as "Electric Charge"?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
pokey

the 0 means 0

then under that 0 there is more information

why do you think that there is added information and to the
left of that information there is nothing saying what the
information is?

could the authors have meant that the blank space to
the left of the information should also be Mass but just figured that people would be capable of figuring that out?

or did they just want to put in more information as filler
to make the number of characters on the page increase??

I cant understand why the information would be there unless
the information is about the mass of the photon , if you
will read the article you can find the same information within
its text however so the information must have some value
wouldn't you think?

I would think that if the authors believed that a photon
had no mass they would have put a 0 (zero) there and left it
at that , but they didn't do that did they , perhaps you also should contact the authors and tell them about the mistake they made.


BTW , how's Gumby doing these days?

also , would you happen to have the wording of the
expanding space theory?

does science have it somewhere?











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I have just found some evidence ((( and a theory ))) Yea!!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html

Quote:
Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) showed that religion and science -- or at least physics -- did not have to be incompatible. LeMaitre, born in Belgium, was a monsignor in the Catholic church.

He was fascinated by physics and studied Einstein's laws of gravitation, published in 1915. He deduced that if Einstein's theory were true (and there had been good evidence for it since 1919), it meant the universe must be expanding. In 1927, the year he got his PhD from MIT, LeMaitre proposed this theory, in which he stated that the expanding universe was the same in all directions -- the same laws applied, and its composition was the same -- but it was not static. He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it. (Another scientist, Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently, a few years earlier.) Even Einstein was reluctant to endorse this extension of his theory of general relativity.


the expanding universe was the same in all directions -- the same laws applied, and its composition was the same -- but it was not static.



He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it.

it wasn't Einstein or hubble that first found that the universe was expanding.

the article then states that what started the expansion
was the big bang.

I still cant find the expanding space theory however so
I cant compare the two theories.

its almost as though there really isn't a expanding space theory at all.

also, I had a really hard time finding what I did find
about the expanding universe.

my thoughts on this new influx of seemingly disappearing data

(1) the big bang happened.

(2) the universe is still expanding because of the initial
momentum of the big bang.

(3) the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to the loss of mass accompanied by less resistance to movement.

stars loose mass.

(1) Nuclear fusion
when 4 hydrogen nuclei are combined to form a single He nucleus, about 0.3% of the original mass is converted into energy. However, this is an extremely slow process and much less important than:

(2) A star expels matter
in the form of a "stellar wind". Although it happens to all stars to some extent (including our Sun), and can be spectacular for some stars at certain stages of their life cycle, it's not particularly strong for a star changing from a main sequence star to become a red giant.

and a star drags everything within its gravitational field along with it as it moves through space.

the black holes at the center of galaxies are constantly
squeezing the energy out of mass on the atomic level as pressures are compounded squeezing the electrons of atoms
inward to the center of the atom resulting in enormous releases of energy.

(3) this causes the galaxy to loose the energy part of the
mass inside the black hole.

therefore , all the stars in all the galaxies in the universe are loosing mass.

and all of the galaxies are accelerating because of this loss of mass , the galaxies at the edge of the universe accelerate faster because the overall gravity of the universe is weaker
at the edge of the universe so the galaxies at the edge of the universe are presented with less resistance to movement.

so the loss of mass and the lowered resistance to movement
results in acceleration of the galaxies.

P=mv




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Gentle Readers: Here we have another prime example of cherry picking. Study it carefully so that you can recognize it when you meet it in other places. Cherry Picking is the art of taking statements out of context to prove that the person doing the picking is correct. Of course they have to be taken out of context because if the whole statement was given it would show that the person doing the picking was wrong. Paul did a fine job of this when he actually quoted Wikipedia on the mass of a photon.

Cherry Picking is very popular among politicians. They use it widely to show that their opponents are evil. This being an election year in the USA we are getting lots of chances to see it in the political advertising we are being inundated with.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Gentle Readers:


perhaps coming from you , your choice of wording should be

Gullible Readers: as these two words would fit in with your agenda
for what the science readers need to be in order for your cults beliefs
to spread or to maintain its base of followers.

BTW again , where is the expanding space theory located?

is it available to the general public for viewing or is
it locked away somewhere in the cult headquarters for fear
that some might recognize it for what it is , BS gibberish.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
http://estfound.org/

This is not what you were asking for, Paul, but if you have not already seen it, it might provide you with some fun.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
your right Bill S. , and thanks for the effort.

I had already visited that web site trying to find the
wording of the expanding space theory but I couldn't find it there either.

I believe that web site is a book site where you can actually
download the entire book and read it in your spare time.

what Im looking for is something more like what rede posted
earlier , but I cant find it.

I don't really need someone or some book to tell me how something works , I can figure that stuff out myself , and
that is why I need to have the wording of the theory and
what it claims will happen or does happen.

and Im certainly not going to simply believe that
somehow expanding space is what is carrying the
galaxies just because someone or some book said
that is whats happening.

and Im certain that there are a few of us left wink





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Paul, You seem to be certain that you know more than the thousands of scientists that have studied the evolution of the universe. So you must have some kind of information to back up your beliefs. Please provide a link to a site that disproves the theory that the universe is expanding. If you can provide such a link I will go ahead and find one more link that tells us how it works, so you can't keep griping that none of the searching you have found is complete enough to satisfy you. Oh, and could you make that a reliable site? Not one that includes all the various nut case claims about various non-scientific theories. You know the kind of stuff that Newton keeps posting on here.

I realize that the fact that thousands of real scientists have studied the data and found the expansion of the universe to be real doesn't cut much ice with you, so I don't expect you to accept it. But you could try something more than your unsupported word to see if that would convince me. Contrary to your beliefs I can be convinced if I am given good enough evidence.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Please provide a link to a site that disproves the theory that the universe is expanding.


I never have claimed that the universe was not expanding.

I have said that I don't believe that the universe is expanding
because space is expanding and supposedly everything in the universe is being carried by the expanding space.

I cant remember ever thinking that the universe was not expanding.

and Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion explain that the universe
is expanding , because they state that an object will travel
in a straight line unless acted on or compelled to change
its direction by an external force.

but you can still post your link if you are allowed to , I
will give you time to ask permission from your higher powers
in the cult if needed.

theres really no hurry as far as Im concerned , but the Gullible masses might be getting impatient.

Quote:
Contrary to your beliefs I can be convinced if I am given good enough evidence.


I have no doubt that you can be convinced about things
but as far as the "good enough evidence" goes , well that
remains to be seen.

BTW , what was the "good enough evidence" that convinced
you that the expanding space could carry a galaxy away?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
There you go folks. Once more Paul wants it both ways. Space isn't expanding, but the universe, which completely fills space is. He doesn't even bother with logic. He just claims that he knows it all and we have to accept his explanation with no attempt to reconcile it with what people who have studied the data in detail say. Paul is the most intelligent person in the world and we need to throw away all the science that has been developed over hundreds of years because he has all the answers.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Once more Paul wants it both ways. Space isn't expanding, but the universe, which completely fills space is.


that's exactly right , Bill.
except for the part I struck through.

Quote:
He doesn't even bother with logic.


that's absolutely wrong , Bill.

Quote:
He just claims that he knows it all and we have to accept his explanation with no attempt to reconcile it with what people who have studied the data in detail say


there is no data , if you have any data that would show that
the space is somehow carrying the galaxies away then please
post it.

for that matter if anyone else has any data you should also post it.

the universe is indeed expanding but it is not expanding because space is expanding , the universe is expanding because
everything in the universe is moving away from the big bang.

so post your link if you ever had one , or post some data that
shows that I am wrong , or at least post the theory that claims
that space is expanding.

space does not expand the way the science clowns and the
science cults seem to think it does.

the universe is inside of space

( notice I didn't make the broad impossible to support claim that the universe fills space like you have as if space is required to expand because everything in the universe is moving away from the big bang )

space may have a boundary just like
EVERYTHING IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE HAS

we don't know if space has a boundary or not now do we?

therefore since everything we can and have observed in the universe throughout history does have a boundary then logic
should tell us that space also has a boundary.

the edge of everything that exist in this universe that we
know exist may be trillions upon trillions of light years away from that boundary if there is a boundary , but we don't know
and we shouldn't make ridiculously broad claims about things
that we don't know.

we should follow the logic that we have gained and not throw
that logic away simply to pacify a group of illogical thinkers that claim that space is expanding and is dragging entire galaxies along with it as it expands.

the expanding space theory is by far
the stupidest and most illogical theory that science has ever fell victim to.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
there is of course a simple test to find out if space is
expanding or not , you already know that the expanding space
is the strongest force in the galaxy because it is moving
all of the galaxies around.

and that is a strong force!

so build a space tight box with a space valve on it.

place the box in the expanding space.

open the space valve to allow space to fill the box.

then weld the valve closed and sit back and watch the
box explode from the tremendous force that the expanding
space is presenting to the sides of the box.

the box should expand at the same rate of speed that the galaxies are being moved apart from each other, because it
has the expanding space stuff inside it.

in fact you can build it here on earth according to you
and rede , oh wait we already have things such as that on
the earth , any air tank should explode by that extreme force.

does anyone know where a air tank is that has been sealed up
awhile?

better go let the expanding space out before it explodes!











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
WOW! Paul is getting even further out. He is proposing absolutely impossible things, even if you believe he knows what he is talking about.

By the way Paul, you might just check this about General Relativity. That is the basis for the expanding universe.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

Quote:
WOW! Paul is getting even further out. He is proposing absolutely impossible things


rede posted the following in post # #52384 - 06/22/14 06:19 PM

what he posted clearly supports my experimernt if the space really does expand everywhere!


Quote:

Re: Rede

The theory says: Space is expanding everywhere - outside galaxies, inside galaxies even within the cells of your body. Galaxies retain their physical integrity due to gravity, and your body due to nuclear forces. The photon, being massless, is affected by gravity only indirectly due to the effect of mass upon the geometry of the space through which the photon passes. So, no matter where the photon happens to be it's affected by the expansion of space, i.e, its wavelength is increased over time in accordance with the Hubble constant.


LOL , you didnt disagree with rede , so its obvious that you agree with rede , the expanding
space stuff would fit inside the box unless it has already expanded too much and once inside
the box and the space valve is welded shut the expanding space stuff would begin to expand and
because the expanding space stuff is so powerful and it can move everything in the universe
around then it can certainly explode a tiny space tight box.

unless you are saying that the expanding space stuff will only expand when its outside the box.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
BTW , Bill

just how powerful is that expanding space stuff , what if
we were to build a box around the entire universe and what
if the box has a pressure guage that registers the pressures
that the expanding space stuff and the galaxies would present to the sides of the box?

not a pressure guage like an air pressure guage on a air tank , but like a stress guage that is used to measure stresses on materials to find the pressures that deformity
and failures will occur.

after all the bigger box would be the same exact experiment
as the tiny box and the results should be similar even though
there is regular stuff and expanding space stuff in the larger box.

that would make a really good thought experiment.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
that would make a really good thought experiment.


Terry Pratchett describes a thought experiment as One that you cant do, and which wont work.

Makes you wonder about this scientific stuff. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Wiki describes

Quote:
A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

I suppose that the best way for you to retain your belief
in your cults fantasy science teachings is to avoid serious
thought about its teachings.

I have provided a simple method to examine the seemingly
invisible expanding space theory , and you being a follower
of the modern science fantasy cults teachings obviously do
not have the ability to apply logical thought as logical thought requires
logic and logic is not a part of the modern science fantasy cult nor is it allowed to be practiced by its followers or applied to the theories that squirt out of real sciences anus yet all the while the followers of the cult line up with there soup bowls in hand to collect and nourish their minds with the
putrid discards of real sciences scientific method.


1) if the space is expanding , it would expand inside the
big box that is built around the known and the unknown universe. ( because we know that the universe is expanding )

2) since ( reportedly ) the theory states that objects in the expanding space do not grow in size , this means that the big box would not grow in size to avoid a collision with the expanding universe.

3) since the big box would not grow in size , the objects inside the big box ( all of the mass in the universe )would be "carried" towards the sides of the big box.

4) these objects would press against the sides of the big box.

5) if the expanding space theory is correct then when
the expanding space has expanded to all of the sides
of the big box , then it could no longer expand and the
universe would stop expanding

or

the expanding space has the ability to pressurize the space inside the big box by continuing to add more and more space inside the big box which would eventually cause the big box to
explode.



















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5