Natural motions scientific exalted.

[Polymath257]

I really don´t care about this - I just hope you got the comparison point here:

You don't care about precision? Then you admit you aren't doing science?

You wrote:

First, qouote: "A vacuum is space devoid of matter" - which is a restricted and even contradictive defintion, as there´s no such thing as *an empty space*. Otherwise you would have to discard and binn the very idea of a CMBR too.

Secondly: When speaking of a *vacuum density* in general, you have:
1) An unexlainable and untestable Big Bang
2) A still increasing expansion velosity.
3) A *gravity assumption* which logically contradicts such a general and increasing velocity expansion.

Arguments on *forth and back* and in all contradictive directions at the same time, is what you really have.

If having 1 molecule of hydrogen in every meter sounds like space is full of matter to you, then there is nothing to argue. The space between those molecules is empty of matter. And that is certainly FAR less matter than what you get in near Earth orbit (where the drag is).

The CMBR is not made of matter, but of photons.

The BB theory *has* been tested in multiple ways. And, no, the assumption of gravity does NOT contradict what we have observed. But you do have to understand what the theory predicts and not simply deal with vague generalities.

 

[Native]

The CMBR is not made of matter, but of photons.

There we go again . . .

The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless,[a] so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.
------------------------
Get your definitions right before you selectivily use them in your arguments: Is your *photon* an elementary particle or a wave?
-----------------------
Elementary particle: In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles.[1](pp1–3) Particles currently thought to be elementary include the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons), which generally are "matter particles" and "antimatter particles", as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and the Higgs boson), which generally are "force particles" that mediate interactions among fermions.[1](pp1–3) A particle containing two or more elementary particles is called a composite particle.

So when do you mean the first definition or the second definition is correct - and especially WHY

The BB theory *has* been tested in multiple ways. And, no, the assumption of gravity does NOT contradict what we have observed. But you do have to understand what the theory predicts and not simply deal with vague generalities.

Oh, sorry! For a moment, I forgot that you´ve deposited your philosophical logics in your calculus department, hence you dont understand the overall philosophical picture - and your *system* even conflicts *observable interpretations* in the *hindsight bias method* as facts.

All you have is *confirmations of lots of assumptions* in a huge and contradictive mess - and that´s really all. Otherwise modern cosmoloy would have a TOE long ago.

 

[Polymath257]

There we go again . . .

The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless,[a] so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum, 299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s). The photon belongs to the class of bosons.
------------------------
Get your definitions right before you selectivily use them in your arguments: Is your *photon* an elementary particle or a wave?
-----------------------

ALL quantum particles are waves as well. They travel as waves and hit like particles. The problem is that the classical particle/wave distinction is a false dichotomy.

Elementary particle: In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles.[1](pp1–3) Particles currently thought to be elementary include the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons), which generally are "matter particles" and "antimatter particles", as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and the Higgs boson), which generally are "force particles" that mediate interactions among fermions.[1](pp1–3) A particle containing two or more elementary particles is called a composite particle.

So when do you mean the first definition or the second definition is correct - and especially WHY

They are definitions of different concepts: elementary particles and composite particles. Photons, electrons, quarks, and gluons are elementary particles. Protons, neutrons, mesons, etc are composite particles.

There are *types* of elementary particles. Fermions are those with half-integer spin and bosons are those with integer spin. Fermions are generally regarded as 'matter' or 'antimatter' while bosons are typically force carriers. Photons are a type of boson. Electrons and quarks are fermions.

Oh, sorry! For a moment, I forgot that you´ve deposited your philosophical logics in your calculus department, hence you dont understand the overall philosophical picture - and your *system* even conflicts *observable interpretations* in the *hindsight bias method* as facts.

All you have is *confirmations of lots of assumptions* in a huge and contradictive mess - and that´s really all. Otherwise modern cosmoloy would have a TOE long ago.

And what do you have as an alternative? A vague set of ideas that doesn't even fit any of the actual observations.

 

[Native]

ALL quantum particles are waves as well. They travel as waves and hit like particles. The problem is that the classical particle/wave distinction is a false dichotomy.

It´s a pure non sensical and inconsistent definition! That´s the falses.

E&M waves hits atoms which then are ionized and being attracted (via the E&M quality) to forming cells and molecules up in the formational processes - until the repulsive E&M quality steps in and gives formation *birth* to everything.

It´s THAT simple! It´s ALL electromagnetic, you know.