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

Im watching a documentary named
did God create the universe.

in the show it says that the 3 ingredients needed to make
a universe are

1) matter
2) energy
3) space

I can agree with 1 and 2 but space cant be an ingredient
because it has no physical properties itself , even me
using the word "itself" indicating that space has physical
properties is just wrong.

space is a description , it is only a word.

and it says that einstein says that
mass is the same as energy
and
energy is the same as mass.

thats really stupid because if all mass were converted into energy then there would be no energy.

and if all energy were converted into mass there would be no energy.

of course hes the one who invented the fake math to begin
with and you would certainly need fake math to prove such
a farce as that.

Im glad that I decided to watch the show and to experience
the philosophers thought patterns.

it is interesting even if it is mere organized science jargon.

well it was interesting up to that point , then it slithered
into negative energy and of course the quantum crap so I
just stopped watching it as it had devolved into true nothingness and pure quackery.

Did you mean "there would be no mass"?

I figure that there needs to be space because without space where would the mass/energy be located?

Bill Gill

no , I meant there would be no energy.

because energy requires mass.

so if all the mass is converted into energy then there would
be no energy.

if you were to find a way to drain all the energy from all the mass , you would still have mass , but if you convert all the mass into energy then you have no mass and the possibility of
having energy is gone because energy requires mass.

even light has mass.

can you think of any type of energy that does not require
mass?

but there needs to be space does not equate into there is space.

that's like saying I want space to exist because there are
actual things located inside the description/word that I use to describe the area that surrounds those actual things.

Space to me is basically a volume that I find things in. It has no real physical attributes. It really IS just a volume in which things exist. Modern science tells us that all space is full of things, even if it is just something on the order of an electromagnetic field. But that doesn't mean that space is those things. So you are correct space exists "because there are actual things located inside the description/word that I use to describe the area that surrounds those actual things". By my definition then space is just the volume in which things exist. But if there were no space (volume) for them to exist in then they could not exist.

However, I recognize that this description may not work when we come to the expansion of the universe. According to the Big Bang Theory space is expanding. I suspect that this inconsistency might be because of an inadequacy of language. I think GR rather speaks of the fabric of space. In my definition above space does not have a fabric. It might be possible to fix this problem by thinking of the fabric of space as being the fields which fill space. There could be a sort of a master field which included all of the other fields. This field then would be what is expanding. This of course is purely speculation on my part. I have absolutely no evidence that it is in any way correct. But it would fix the problem with my definition of space.

Bill Gill

thats because they somehow think that space can expand , as if
it were an object with physical properties and the galaxies are
pressing against the outer edges of space causing it to expand.

what they should say is that everything in the observable universe is moving away from the original location of the
big bang and leave it at that.

which equates to the universe is requiring a constantly larger volume to fit into , and space is that volume.


theres nothing mysterious about space.

saying the "fabric of space" is misleading as it suggest that
space consist of some type of fabric.

the electromagnetic fields , light waves , gravity fields
etc... could be perceived as being a woven fabric but the fabric would certainly not be "of space" but of actual objects that exist within the volume of space.

No they aren't saying that the galaxies are pressing against the outer edges of space. They are saying that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe, except for objects that are close enough together to be gravitationally bound. In their definition of space, which is the part that I described as the fabric of space, then the volume that includes everything in the universe is expanding because of the increasing separation between the parts of it.

In their description of the expansion of space things aren't moving away for the original location of the big bang. They are just getting farther away from each other. Think of 2 boats in the ocean. One is sitting in a current that moves it along, the other is sitting in a still place. With respect to the water in which it is floating the first boat is not moving. With respect to the water in which the second boat is floating it is not moving. But they are moving with respect to each other. The universe works the same way. The space in which galaxies exist is stretching, so the galaxies are moving farther apart. But their location in space isn't changing, just the amount of space there is between them.


That is basically what I was trying to say. My completely unsupported idea is that the basic definition of space is simply a concept in which we imagine things to be located. However, this idea of space is purely conceptual, and provides nothing to work with. The scientific conception of space is the area in which the universe exists. This space does indeed provide an area in which we can make observations and predictions. So scientifically if we just use the definition of space that includes everything we can observe we have a usable definition that provides for a realistic view of the universe.

Bill Gill

It just occurred to me that the title of this thread may have a slight inaccuracy. The idea is that 3 things are needed for a universe, mass, energy, and space. I suppose you could have a universe with just those 3 things, but it would be a really boring universe, since nothing would change. For change to happen you also need time. Without time a universe would be stuck in one state for eternity. Kind of like a photograph. The scene in it never changes.

I understand that some theorists have said that time may not really exist it is just an illusion. But that never made much sense to me.

Bill Gill

so the non existent space that has no properties or mass is stretching.

and because the non existent space that has no mass is stretching it is forcing / causing the actual galaxies that do have mass to move further apart from each other.

but the location of the actual galaxies that have mass
is not changing relative to the non existent massless space
that is forcing them apart from each other.

energy requires mass , and to force a galaxy to move would
require at least a tiny amount of mass which space does not
happen to possess.

so how do they assume that the galaxies are propelled to
move?

are they suggesting that the space is just moving the galaxies
because the space is expanding?

even if that is the ludicrous explanation that they are attempting to use , they still must provide the explanation of the force that the space uses in its grand ill-fated and misguided endeavor.

its obviously a non scientific theory.

nothing in science or physics could ever back that up.

Not the non-existent space. All of the mass and energy that the visible universe consists of. That is why I defined 2 different kinds of space. The one you are talking about which is purely conceptual and the space with which science can work, which is everything that exists in the visible universe.


The stretching of space is produced by the sum of all the energy and mass that exists in the scientifically accessible space. Just as a boat in a current requires no energy to move with respect to a boat outside of the current a galaxy in one place can move without any energy if it is just going with the flow.

By the way you say "energy requires mass". Where did that fact(?) come from? I can think of nothing that could lead you to that belief. And your making positive statements that are wrong doesn't somehow make them right. Based on that I think you should go back and rethink this whole discussion and make sure you know what you are talking about before you make sweeping statements. Or at least you should apply a caveat that you don't know for sure. Recall that is what I did when I started talking about what space is.

Bill Gill

energy requires mass.

PE = Potential Energy = mgh = mass x gravity x height

KE = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x m x v = .5 x mass x velocity

here is a list of forms of energy all of which require mass in
order to have ever existed.

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

if you know of a form of energy that does not require mass
then please post a link to the find.

the boat DOES require energy to move.
ALL movement / motion requires energy.

a boat in a current is moving with the current because there is a force / energy that propels the current.

without that force / energy propelling the current the current would not move and the boat would not move.

we know that that force / energy comes mainly from our suns radiant energy.

what is the force / energy that causes the space to expand
which the galaxies supposedly float in?

I suppose they also think that newton was wrong when he
said that an object will travel in a straight line unless acted on by a force traveling in a different direction.

because the theory appears to attempt to remove or replace a part of newtons laws of motion in order to please or protect a theory of Einstein.


in other words it look as if they are trying to replace
solid tested logic with flawed logic.

you will not be able to find an example to use that does
not require some type of energy that will show how the galaxies are moving away from each other in the supposed expanding space theory that claims that the galaxies move because the space is expanding.

because its impossible to find one , because the theory
is flawed.

and in the cosmos things tend to obey a set of rules and
making up more and more cover up stories to try and explain
why things are not behaving according to the flawed theories
will only serve to pacify people , and will not affect or dictate to the cosmos how the cosmos works.

Bill, I have to agree with Paul that the boat analogy is not the best you have ever thought of.



If you go back far enough, you will find posts of mine that raise this same doubt. Who needs to take sides?



Could that be a leap of faith?

Discounting photons, which you may argue, must have mass; mass is necessary for us to observe the effects of energy. How would we know if energy were present in an “absolute vacuum” with nothing for it to act upon, and nothing with which it might be observed?

If we cannot say with certainty that it is there, nor can we say that it isn't.

not to me Bill , for me it only takes a mere reference to
the logic that can easily be deducted from the experimental data that has been gathered about mass, energy and motion.

to me faith is not a part of logic.

faith is a belief in something.

taking sides could possibly extrapolate the overall situation
as assistance to side a would overbalance the momentum of side b , which would require more assistance to side b.

I think that logic in this case does not need assistance
as logic has already developed enough momentum to maintain
its ground on its own.

also this would remove any possible future reprisals against
those who might supply assistance.

true science is in control of the situation and true science
really needs no help defending itself against invented modern science.

A form of energy that does not require mass? How about light. The photon is massless, but it carries energy. So energy does not require mass.

Bill Gill

The boat does not have to expend any energy to move. That is what I was trying to say. Yes, there is energy involved, but not the energy of the boat, it is the energy of the water that moves it. In the same way the expansion of the universe is based on the total energy of the universe. The galaxies are not expending any energy to continue to separate.


I'm afraid that your continual denial of the validity of Einstein's theories can only be based on some fundamental misunderstanding of the science involved. I believe that Einstein's theories are correct for one simple reason. They work. Your claims that they are not logical is totally dependent on your simple and possibly willful misunderstanding. The real test of a scientific theory is whether it works. Einstein's theories have continued to work for a century now and they won't quit just because you refuse to accept the evidence.

Bill Gill

This is of value only if you assume that scientific veracity is dependent on popular opinion, or is a matter for democratic vote.

Assumption is an inherent feature of extrapolation. What are you assuming here?

Anyway, the point of my comment was that I question whatever I feel I don't understand about any point of view.

Haha well said Bill.S ... yeah not sure we ever want to get into climate change stupidity where we have 97% consensus rubbish.

The more interesting question to ask however is if Bill G can quantify an ingredient for us please .. he does like his little boxes

Paul I am surprised you need any ingredients don't you just need a GOD? I thought he just snaps his finger and it all comes into being at least that seems to be the consensus of 97% of religions

and I have an electric motor that requires electricity to rotate it.

if I start it running in space and then remove the electricity
from the electric motor , the electric motor will continue to
rotate.

because electric motors do not require electricity either!

when my car runs out of gasoline while Im driving it down
the road for some reason it keeps moving until I wait a long time for it to roll to a stop while Im driving it or until I press the brake pedal while Im driving it
therefore my car does not require gasoline for me to drive it.

your photon requires mass.(a atom)
the electric motor requires mass.(a source of electricity )
the car requires mass.(gasoline)

really Bill , you should at least be able to find something
that would have energy but not require mass if you really believe that energy does not require mass.

BTW

photon mass < 1 x 10 ^-18 eV/c it has mass but not much mass.

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.

there is one hint I can give you that you can consider
Bill previously mentioned a gravitational lens , and the gravitational lens effect would not work if the expanding space theory was correct.

because the expanding space would diffuse the light as the
light would be floating along with the expanding space like
everything else that has mass floats in the current of the
expanding space theory , so the light waves would also expand
away from each other and by the time the light waves reached the earth they would be so diffused that we would never have seen any light from the objects that are really distant.

but that would only happen if the expanding space theory was correct , its really nice that it isn't correct because if the expanding space theory was correct then we would never see any distant galaxies.

The problem with your solution is that classical physicists spent over a century trying to find that simple answer. The one that most of them liked best even had a name: Vulcan. It was proposed that Vulcan was a planet inside the orbit of Mercury that caused the discrepancy. That would be the forces you say were not accounted for. Unfortunately they never have found Vulcan. But the discrepancy in Mercuries orbit is precisely accounted for by GR.

You say you don't want to even try to understand SR, Gr, or QM, you just want to say it is wrong. That will be hard to do. I suggest that a flat out refusal to accept anything that disagrees with your beliefs is not a very rational point of view.

Bill Gill

that would be a lot of wasted time and some of it might cloud
my perception of reality as it has many others.

and your absolutely wrong , I said that I don't want to study all of gr sr qm just to find that the space expanding theory is wrong as I predicted and have now proven that the theory is wrong.

BTW , I don't really have any thing against a theory that can be supported by math as long as the math that supports the theory is valid and not simply designed to protect the theory.

I should have stated that Sir Isaac Newton proved that the expanding space theory was wrong several hundred years ago with his laws of motion.

and Im surprised that all of you geniuses never figured it out
and to me that's the really funny part.

also: according to the now debunked expanding space theory
a galaxy does not itself expand so its light does not expand while the light is in the non expanding localized space that the galaxy occupies , but according to the now debunked expanding space theory when the light from a galaxy moves into
the expanding space current that carries the galaxies causing them to move further and further away from each other the light waves must also move further and further away from each other unless you want to make up yet another lie to cover up the cascading string of lies that were necessary to cover up or protect the initial lie.

I have no need to waste time commenting on specific statements in this thread; the dazzling absurdities speak loudly enough for themselves. For the benefit of the passerby with a reasonably open mind (as opposed to the religiously biased bigot) I paste the following, which refers to a different aspect of cosmology yet applies to all science:

Prof Marc Kamionkowski, from Johns Hopkins University, commented that what we were witnessing currently was "science in action"..."We're going to need confirmation by independent groups. That's the way things work in science. We don't believe things because somebody says they're true; we believe them because different people make the measurements independently and find the same results."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27935479

Now that I have to agree with Rede, what Marosz and Paul both want us to do is actually ignore certain experiments the ones that disagree with their idea because they have fixed what they want the result to be.

Science actually doesn't care if either was to be right, all science cares about is advancing knowledge but somehow they think it actually cares enough about their plainly stupid ideas to somehow pervert science. So basically millions of scientists around the world are all conspiring against them ... we have a name for that condition

The problem they are really struggling with now, is no-one actually cares what they think so they make more and more stupid and outrageous claims. Somehow they think science is a popularity contest and they or the public get a vote

Still no-one has taken up the challenge to define what an ingredient is yet they all want to discuss using them

orac

your just angry at me because I have caused you to come face
to face with the reality that exist in the cosmos.

you just cant have it both ways , you cant have the expanding space theory moving entire galaxies around and not also have the expanding space moving the almost massless light waves around also...

however Im sure that you and your cult will find another way
to explain it away , wont you...

and theres no reason to get angry and upset when your faced
with problems because if the theories that you believe in are
right then you should easily be able to refute any claims made
that would show the theories you believe in to be wrong.

although you somehow believe that it is religion that is
upsetting the theories that you believe in at this moment
I can assure you that it is science itself that has brought this about.

as I said in a earlier thread science is in the process of
throwing away the garbage it has collected.

Where did you ever ask me what I believed?
Where did I answer?

Now I am not sure how you therefore think I could be angry at anything you say .. you really do seem to have issues worrying about what I think

Marosz seems to suffer the same disease because you both seem to want to convince people of some view. Personally I couldn't give a rats if you believe my view or not because I know science isn't a popularity contest and hence you and your opinion does not matter

As I said I don't do religious nutcase conversations pretty much on the same grounds as Rede so please don't let me get in the way of a good dribble but do try and keep the facts accurate.

I think everyone is pretty much ignoring you and Marosz we really are just answering wrong assertions. Conversation with you two lunatics is pretty pointless. Why don't you two go and start up a conversation you have so much in common.

The only part of the post I am remotely interested is if someone wants to have a crack at defining an ingredient because that gets interesting.

whatever , orac

I never claimed that you were a nut case , I did state that
you are dumber than dirt , and I will stand on that well known fact.

I never did expect that you would be able or is that allowed
to agree that the expanding space would also expand the light waves.



I believe that you and others on this forum don't really have
any discussion in them , all you have is dictation of your cult beliefs that fly in the face of reality.

but you do have one thing in common of course and that
thing is your tail between your legs as you run away from
anything that threatens your cult beliefs.

I think that this deserves its own thread so in order to
allow people to discuss the ingredients as you have requested
I will start a new more visible thread.