Science and religion

[james blunt]

True model , If I continue inflating the balloon, z3 ends up inside the balloon .

k = μ0 and the balloons surface affect on space M=μ0 ( M of course mass )

You can do this experiment in real life too

Method : inflate a balloon

 

[youknowme]

True model , If I continue inflating the balloon, z3 ends up inside the balloon .

k = μ0 and the balloons surface affect on space N=μ0

View attachment 26548

Instead of making up gibberish, why don't you actually just learn simple math and simple physics? It won't be that hard, to just learn the basics, and then maybe you wouldn't need to make things up.

 

[james blunt]

Instead of making up gibberish, why don't you actually just learn simple math and simple physics? It won't be that hard, to just learn the basics, and then maybe you wouldn't need to make things up.

Made up ? Basic physical facts , I don't need to know any maths to know basic physical facts such as :

For any physical expansion there has to be physical space to expand into !

Space is absolutely passive !

Why don't you learn some physics ?

 

[youknowme]

Made up ? Basic physical facts , I don't need to know any maths to know basic physical facts such as :

For any physical expansion there has to be physical space to expand into !

Why don't you learn some physics ?

View attachment 26549

You are not fooling anyone here. It is not working.

 

[james blunt]

You are not fooling anyone here. It is not working.

Now you think you can read , readers minds ! Anyone reading this thread knows I am correct . The only people I'd expect to post are those trying to keep me quiet and trying to undermine me to the readers !

I know I am correct because basic physics shows I am correct , so..............I think its about time science raised the white flag because

 

[youknowme]

Now you think you can read , readers minds ! Anyone reading this thread knows I am correct . The only people I'd expect to post are those trying to keep me quiet and trying to undermine me to the readers !

I know I am correct because basic physics shows I am correct , so..............I think its about time science raised the white flag because

Not buying any of it.

 

[james blunt]

Not buying any of it.

I'm not selling it ! I am giving it away .

I have great thinking , I see the simplicity in things .

 

[Polymath257]

Made up ? Basic physical facts , I don't need to know any maths to know basic physical facts such as :

For any physical expansion there has to be physical space to expand into !

Space is absolutely passive !

Why don't you learn some physics ?

I would recommend you take your own advice. Neither of your 'physical facts' is true:

1. Expansion can be of space itself and does not require 'extra' space to expand into.

2. Space is NOT passive: it is a dynamic thing that responds to mass and energy.

 

[youknowme]

I'm not selling it ! I am giving it away .

I have great thinking , I see the simplicity in things .

Make sure you read my sig. below.

 

[james blunt]

Make sure you read my sig. below.

Ostensible , a word many people are not even familiar with . Why look to fix something that doesn't seem broken? Accuracy of thought .

I'm not bothered anyway , I'm going to leave science to it , I have better things to be doing , I'm not sure what yet , but I'll find something .

 

[james blunt]

I would recommend you take your own advice. Neither of your 'physical facts' is true:

1. Expansion can be of space itself and does not require 'extra' space to expand into.

2. Space is NOT passive: it is a dynamic thing that responds to mass and energy.

Both my examples were true ! Both of your examples are false .

 

[Polymath257]

Both my examples were true ! Both of your examples are false .

Prove it.

I, on the other hand, can prove my statements. The evidence for general relativity does exactly that.

 

[youknowme]

Ostensible , a word many people are not even familiar with . Why look to fix something that doesn't seem broken? Accuracy of thought .

I'm not bothered anyway , I'm going to leave science to it , I have better things to be doing , I'm not sure what yet , but I'll find something .

Don't let the lab doors hit your butt on the way out.

 

[james blunt]

Prove it.

I, on the other hand, can prove my statements. The evidence for general relativity does exactly that.

Science has a very irrational logic when it comes to evidence !

I have proved it , I've given you a simple real life experiment using a balloon . The outer space of the deflated balloon ends up inner space of the inflated balloon . I also provided the box demonstration where the balloon can't inflate because there is boundaries of the sides of the box thus proving for something to inflate it needs space to expand into !

I don't make up my science , it exists in reality !

 

[james blunt]

Don't let the lab doors hit your butt on the way out.

I'll leave through the window !

 

[Polymath257]

Science has a very irrational logic when it comes to evidence !

I have proved it , I've given you a simple real life experiment using a balloon . The outer space of the deflated balloon ends up inner space of the inflated balloon . I also provided the box demonstration where the balloon can't inflate because there is boundaries of the sides of the box thus proving for something to inflate it needs space to expand into !

I don't make up my science , it exists in reality !

And your balloon analogy isn't correct. it neglects to consider the possibility of curved space. Or that space itself is finite. Or expansion of flat space.

Once again, the issue isn't something expanding *within* space. it is the expansion of space itself.

And, in general relativity (and the Big Bang scenario), it is space itself that is expanding. So your balloon simply misses the whole point.

 

[james blunt]

And your balloon analogy isn't correct. it neglects to consider the possibility of curved space. Or that space itself is finite. Or expansion of flat space.

Once again, the issue isn't something expanding *within* space. it is the expansion of space itself.

And, in general relativity (and the Big Bang scenario), it is space itself that is expanding. So your balloon simply misses the whole point.

My example are accurate and true physics , your explanations are incorrect and you have the wrong semantics .

Space does not curve , space-time curves ! Space-time is the field matter that occupies space .

The Big bang is incorrect , I have demonstrated to you why but unbelievable you are still ignoring it .

A metric expansion is not an expansion of space itself , space is not observed to be red shifting , point sources red-shift . I'm sorry but I don't think you understand things correctly .

 

[Polymath257]

My example are accurate and true physics , your explanations are incorrect and you have the wrong semantics .

Space does not curve , space-time curves !

Both, actually. Space is simply a constant time slice of spacetime.

Space-time is the field matter that occupies space .

Um, no.

The Big bang is incorrect , I have demonstrated to you why but unbelievable you are still ignoring it .

No, I am not ignoring your demonstration. I just know that your demonstration isn't correct. What you have presented is poorly reasoned, lacks a basic understanding of the relevant concepts, and is contrary to actual observations.

Until you deal with those issues in a way that isn't simply saying 'is not!', there isn't anything more to say.

A metric expansion is not an expansion of space itself , space is not observed to be red shifting , point sources red-shift . I'm sorry but I don't think you understand things correctly .

Yes, things, like galaxies, that are at rest in their local frames. And the red shifts are the type and the amount as predicted by general relativity and have not been predicted *in detail* by any other theory.

Your ideas don't even get to the level of being an overall possibility, let alone giving detailed predictions that can be verified.

 

[james blunt]

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

Let me help people with their under

Both, actually. Space is simply a constant time slice of spacetime.


Um, no.


No, I am not ignoring your demonstration. I just know that your demonstration isn't correct. What you have presented is poorly reasoned, lacks a basic understanding of the relevant concepts, and is contrary to actual observations.

Until you deal with those issues in a way that isn't simply saying 'is not!', there isn't anything more to say.



Yes, things, like galaxies, that are at rest in their local frames. And the red shifts are the type and the amount as predicted by general relativity and have not been predicted *in detail* by any other theory.

Your ideas don't even get to the level of being an overall possibility, let alone giving detailed predictions that can be verified.

Sir , you do not understand the present model correctly let alone understand my more accurate model .


I don't mean to sound rude or disrespectful to your conversation , so please don't take offense .


Allow me to educate you !

Let's start with the CMBR

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia


In this link on the right of the screen you will observe the cosmology model of CMBR . Now people don't understand that this model / picture of the CMBR is not an observation picture , it is an artist impression of what they imagine it may look like .
They can't actually see CMBR but they can detect it .

Did you know that sir ?

 

[james blunt]

From detection to such a subjective statement without evidence

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR) is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe in Big Bang cosmology.

There is no evidence or proof that CMBR is from the early Universe . Its detected now in the present , so what says it isn't from now ?