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 (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 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
Quote:
The other side I was trying to get you to think about that even under what you have expressed 75% of the energy is MIA in dark energy/dark matter.


or it is still traveling as light energy away from what we
call our universe.

stars convert mass into light energy , that light energy
eventually leaves what we call our universe.

13.8 billion years traveling at the speed of light.

how far is that?

also the black hole at the centers of galaxies crunch stars
until their energy builds up high enough to escape the gravity of the mass inside the black holes.

that light energy also leaves what we call our universe.

so now just how much energy is supposedly missing in the
MIA fantasy dark matter and all the dark sensationalism.

was this lost energy that is still there traveling through
the void accounted for?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul I have to give you credit that at least you realize there is an issue and your own answer to this therefore tells you that you can't close the universe as a system and so your idea of the universe in a box is trivially wrong.

If you wanted to contain what we observe in the universe as a box it becomes no different to the solar system or a galaxy as you go out and out each level. So there would be no reason you couldn't go up a level and have our universe rotating with a clump of other universes around in some sort of super universe thing. We would have no observational data because we don't see the motion so how could you exclude it. Lack of data does not mean a system is closed it means you don't know and there you have a definitive answer.

It also means you can't use that sort of argument against expanding space because it's illogical. I was laughing at both sides in the discussion because there was so much wrong it was like a train wreck.

I could never agree with Bill and on some technical points Rede with what they seem to view as some sort of standard science interpretation, I care little for their interpretation and am happy to be a stupid crazy janitor if I had to believe that as science. I also do not intend to argue this with you as from your comments you clearly understand what I am saying and the sorts of issues it raises and the universe is most definitely an open system unless you can prove it to me to be closed.

I am glad you understood and now I will leave you with it.

Bill, I thought about answering your post but to be honest I don't think you want to understand the connections and so I am happy to say you are right I am wrong, whatever you want. To be honest I really don't care you are as correct as Marosz, just ask him ... what can I say I am wrong yet again it;s already in my byline smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/03/14 02:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It also means you can't use that sort of argument against expanding space because it's illogical.


orac, it is a thought experiment , it began with
a small box built inside the universe.

it was to test if the space inside the small box would expand.

the larger box was to confirm the small box.

1) if the space would expand inside the large box.
it would also expand inside the small box.

seeing that the universe is expanding and would expand
inside the large box , then the space inside the small
box must also expand , it does not , so the test worked
as well as was expected.

the results logically show , that the space is not expanding.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Orac,
Please confine yourself to answering questions. The forms you are using to reply to others are bordering on the abusive. Please have respect for you fellow forumites. I have received complaints about your posts, and if you continue with contempt for the rules of this forum you will not be allowed to continue to post. Your English needs practice, particularly with punctuation. If you can't respect the other posters here, then don't post. I would be glad to correct your English. I cannot correct your attitude.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry Rose it is very hard to hide my disdain for something I find rather silly to be even discussing on a science forum. I will attempt to either not comment or try and hide my disdain better in future and improve my punctuation.

On the content of my posts, I see no question in Bill's, Rede's last posts they are comments of statements of belief and really just attacks on me. Paul's last couple contains clarifications which I understood, however in many of the posts above I am not sure the expletives helped me understand anything.

However I never complain about anything said at or about me as you know. I have only ever complained about one post which was on the topic of the holocaust and had a brief discussion on how to handle Marosz.

I would also like you to read back up and it was Bill who wanted me to make a statement because he objected to me continually asking prompting questions. He categorically insisted on it and I quote "If you do know something tell us. If you don't really know something don't imply that you do". So if I ask prompted and directed questions like new forum policy I am condemned and if I answer them I am condemned ... not sure where I go from there.

As you obviously got a complaint from Rede, and you already had one from Paul, I think it best I just leave them to it and ignore this like Marosz's posts.

Paul: I would have liked to explain the problem with your clarification but as per above to Rose I am out of here ... good luck.

Last edited by Orac; 07/03/14 06:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul

or it is still traveling as light energy away from what we
call our universe.

stars convert mass into light energy , that light energy
eventually leaves what we call our universe.

13.8 billion years traveling at the speed of light.

how far is that?



Paul, I think there are a couple of problems with your idea that there is light energy traveling beyond the universe and therefore being lost.

1. By definition the universe is everything that there is. Everything there is includes light. Therefore no matter where light travels it is still in the universe.

2. The universe is about 13.8 years old. The oldest light we see, the Cosmic Background, is almost that old. So the light hasn't had time to travel "outside the universe" it is just now reaching us.

That's 2 different ways of looking at it, and neither allows light to be lost.

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

what we call our universe is what we know exist because
we have seen it , or detected it.

Quote:
Paul, I think there are a couple of problems with your idea that there is light energy traveling beyond the universe and therefore being lost.


well Im certainly not going to suggest that you have any
problems , you do seem to have an uncanny ability to find things that I have said that I havent said , but that wouldnt be a problem that would be more of an advantage in a discussion wouldnt it?

Quote:
Therefore no matter where light travels it is still in the universe.


true , and the light that is traveling away from us , is not seen unless it is reflected off of some object.

also the 13.2 billion year old light from the galaxy that was emitted in our direction way before the earth was even formed was also being emitted away from where the earth is today
and has been traveling for 13.2 billion years.

so as far as we know the light that we can see from that particular galaxy that is sent outwards from the galaxy has a radius of
at least 13.2 billion light years in distance , which tells
me that parts of the light that the galaxy emitted 13.2 billion years ago would now be at least 26.4 billion light years away from the earth because the light would be traveling in all directions.

and thats not counting any movement of the galaxy to the place where it actually is today , if its even there at all.

most likely the light from the galaxy is much further than the 26.4 billion light year distance from the earth.

Quote:
That's 2 different ways of looking at it, and neither allows light to be lost.


I never did say that the light was lost!
heres what I said.

Quote:
so now just how much energy is supposedly missing in the
MIA fantasy dark matter and all the dark sensationalis
m.

was this lost energy that is still there traveling through
the void accounted for?




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
I never did say that the light was lost!
heres what I said.

Quote:
so now just how much energy is supposedly missing in the
MIA fantasy dark matter and all the dark sensationalis
m.

was this lost energy that is still there traveling through
the void accounted for?




You said it was missing. When something is missing that means it is lost. And the energy isn't lost. It is still wandering around the universe in one form or another. We can tell it is there by measuring the movements of the various components of the universe. The components include matter, electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy, dark matter, and dark energy. They have all been accounted for.

Some scientists believe the movement of stars in galaxies and galaxies in galactic clusters can be explained by Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). MOND works great for the motion of galaxies, but doesn't explain a lot of other effects, so it is still questionable. GR explains almost everything else, and makes some very strong predictions that MOND doesn't. So most think that MOND is wrong, they just don't know how.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
What do we mean by expanding space? If two objects are moving apart through space, the space between them is increasing. Presumably this differs from expanding space, because the totality of space remains the same.

Expanding space must imply that space is getting bigger. Two possibilities come to mind:

1. New space is being created everywhere.

2. The boundary of the Universe is constantly moving “outward”, without anything extra being added.

Either of these seems reasonable, if space is considered as “nothing”; but such, we are assured, is not the case.

If space is something, then the expansion of space must involve more than simply an increase in the size of the Universe, unless the something that is space is becoming increasingly rarefied.

Given that the galaxy groups are moving apart, it seems reasonable to suggest that this rarefaction is what is happening.

Does this leave us with a paradox?

If space is something, and this something is a quantum entity, its quanta must be moving apart. If they are moving apart, the area between them must be increasing.

Unless new quanta are being created to fill this “void”, what should we call this void? It cannot be space, because space is something, and this must be nothing.


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
Quote:
You said it was missing. When something is missing that means it ...bla...bla...bla...and so on.


no bill , now your saying that im saying the things that
orac is saying , where does it all stop?
please try to keep up with what is being said and
who is saying what in the discussion.

that was what orac said when he said MIA in
the below as in missing in action !!

Originally Posted By: orac
The other side I was trying to get you to think about that even under what you have expressed 75% of the energy is MIA in dark energy/dark matter.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Given that the galaxy groups are moving apart, it seems reasonable to suggest that this rarefaction is what is happening.

Does this leave us with a paradox?

If space is something, and this something is a quantum entity, its quanta must be moving apart. If they are moving apart, the area between them must be increasing.

Bill, as we know, the electromagnetic waves that happen to be passing through space are stretched, but the energy of the space itself remains the same per unit of volume. There are just as many virtual particle per cubic unit in the expanded space. Whatever the nature of dark energy, that too appears to be undiluted. If you find anything to the contrary, I'd be interested.
____

Adding this YouTube link. The topic has been thrashed out already, but this is a clear and simple explanation of how it works. It also applies to boxes, btw.
Do We Expand With The Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_9ZR2I0_w


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
embedded

that video is the same exact crap , as the expanding space
theory.

if it has any substance to validity then it
must not want to explain the substance that it has because
it only states that space is expanding but it gives no reason for the expansion , and it only does that to negate newtons laws of motion that present a clear reason for the expansion.

I personally think that the entire can of rubbish
is no more than a desire to lay claim on something new.



It hurts to see this type of video made to try and
explain something as ridiculous as space expansion.

the idiot that made the video didn't even mention momentum
which is the true reason why everything in the universe is moving away from everything else and that momentum is the
true reason why gravity cannot hold the galaxies from moving away from each other

its looking like becoming a science student will require
one to become an idiot in the process.

but that will be fine because all the other scientist will
eventually be idiots and they will all blend in perfectly.

the really sad thing about this type of crap science is
that the students who have the ability to think this crap
through and determine that it is crap may just give up on
education because they don't want their minds to become
polluted with this type of garbage , or their logic will
cause them to fail classes.







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
my response to redes crap science video.

the below video will explain why the universe is expanding.
all of you students of science should let your teachers
know that you know that they are idiots if they tell you
otherwise.
but you should also let your idiot teachers know that
you will play the game only to get your degree.

this way at some point in the future there will at least
be some hope for science.

revolt !!!



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
Quote:
Expanding space must imply that space is getting bigger.


thats the problem I have with it.

they just want us to believe that ( without any reasonable cause ) space is just expanding.


and on top of that they want us to believe that because
space ( without any reasonable cause ) is expanding , everything
in the universe is being carried by the expanding space as it expands
as if everything were somehow attached to the expanding space.

Quote:
Expanding space must imply that space is getting bigger. Two possibilities come to mind:

1. New space is being created everywhere.

2. The boundary of the Universe is constantly moving “outward”, without anything extra being added.


we can add a third possibility to that list

3. the universe expands into an infinite void.

there really is no expansion however its just like an
explosion.

mass from an explosion also expands away from its center.




I think that teaching the crap science should be a criminal offence because a degree in science is a paid for item.

I also think that todays sensationalism of science is to
attract new students which could easily be viewed or construed
as fraud.

maybe some of the schools and teachers need to be summoned
to a court of law where they can explain just how the space
is expanding.

judging from the lack of any evidence presented so far
in my quest to find a reason for space to expand I dont
think that a 1st year law student would ever lose any
case that was held to determine if the schools were involved
in fraud to enhance their incomes and number of students.

schools of all types that teach the crap , fake , science as
being true should be held liable for the criminal act that
they are engaging in unless they teach it as a belief and
not as a fact.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Paul: "it only states that space is expanding but it gives no reason for the expansion
Paul: "they just want us to believe that ( without any reasonable cause ) space is just expanding"

It's observation evidence, Paul. The same as Newton's apple falling. Do you reject his mathematical description of gravitation because you can't provide a 'reasonable cause' for the apple falling to the ground? Just, calling it 'gravity' doesn't tell you (or Newton) how it works, any more than the name 'Dark Energy' tells you how that works.

Why do I bother? I swore I wouldn't grin


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Can I offer at least a simple suggestion why don't you all at least read a simple layman FAQ on dark energy. You might then at least get the basics right.

Rede is at least semi close but the rest of you are so far off it hurts. Sean Caroll's FAQ would be a good layman readable start point.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/04/dark-energy-faq/

Rede got to the point he realized the dark energy stayed constant and it gives the direct problem that comes under the special title in the FAQ

Quote:
If the dark energy has a constant density, but space expands, doesn’t that mean energy isn’t conserved?

Think carefully about the answer and what it implies and see if you agree with Sean Caroll.

So either you choose dark energy or you choose conservation of energy you can not have both.

Good luck people.

Last edited by Orac; 07/06/14 09:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Newton not Invented gravitation

Galileo Natural fall down Law was First !!!

Important problem that we must solve

apple----Earth---apple >>> motion

apple left or right will hit earth First ?

why above question is soo importnat !!!


HISTORY
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."

Marosz ( me and my Idea )
Gravitation = EM wave
Gravitation is not moving with body ( not Exist C speed + V !!!) exist only C speed

we can use Inverse Square Law and Gravitation to evaluate motion !!!

We can solve Mr Gallileo problem !!! in 2012 I made in home
first test for light. http://tesla4.blogspot.com

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted By: Orac
Can I offer at least a simple suggestion why don't you all at least read a simple layman FAQ on dark energy. You might then at least get the basics right.

Rede is at least semi close but the rest of you are so far off it hurts. Sean Caroll's FAQ would be a good layman readable start point.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/10/04/dark-energy-faq/

Rede got to the point he realized the dark energy stayed constant and it gives the direct problem that comes under the special title in the FAQ

Quote:
If the dark energy has a constant density, but space expands, doesn’t that mean energy isn’t conserved?

Think carefully about the answer and what it implies and see if you agree with Sean Caroll.

So either you choose dark energy or you choose conservation of energy you can not have both.

Good luck people.



p1...p2...p3...p4....M >>>
.
.
.
.
m

mass M is moving
Inverse Square Law
and huge distance 1000000000000000.....0000... light years



mass m will acelerate
but if the distance is huge ( Intensity of the signal is almost constant )



L

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul: "it only states that space is expanding but it gives no reason for the expansion
Paul: "they just want us to believe that ( without any reasonable cause ) space is just expanding"

It's observation evidence, Paul. The same as Newton's apple falling. Do you reject his mathematical description of gravitation because you can't provide a 'reasonable cause' for the apple falling to the ground? Just, calling it 'gravity' doesn't tell you (or Newton) how it works, any more than the name 'Dark Energy' tells you how that works.


no , its not the same as newtons apple , because the apple falls due to the force of gravity , and because we can observe
how gravity works and we can measure the effects of gravity on an object and between objects.

classical science provided a reason why the apple falls.

modern science and its EST provides nothing as a reason why space is supposedly forcing everything to move by expanding.

it just states that "space expands" and gives the gullible
masses no reason as to why it expands , this leads to the gullible masses devouring any crap that modern science can think of to spew out of its anus to feed its hungry children and the gullible masses will devour every bit of it and then they will lick the bowl clean and ask for more.

because its fantastic , incredible , and sensational.

not to mention unbelievable.

science is the only discipline where you can have
pure fantasy in a real world.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Paul: "classical science provided a reason why the apple falls"

No, it only provided a mathematical description of the effects of what Newton called gravitas. He called it 'gravitas' for want of a label. It did not provide a reason.

You accept that gravity exists because you see the evidence. You don't accept that space is expanding, because only scientists can verify the evidence. Therefore it's a conspiracy? I expect that puts the cap on the discussion then.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Page 5 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 UsokÂþ»­¾W
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