That's your explanation - really? Wow, it is hard to believe the physics community hasn't embraced this little gem.
:roflmao:
A logical way the Universe began, evolved, and will end.
- Thread starter knowerastronomy
- Start date
That's your explanation - really? Wow, it is hard to believe the physics community hasn't embraced this little gem.
:roflmao:
knowerastronomy
Registered Member
You have no theory. You are incapable of answering any questions about your idea because you clearly have no science background and your conjecture is incomplete and poorly thought out. Your ideas are nothing more than pseudo-scientific adolescent conjectures.
Try taking some physics courses at least you could learn some new buzz words to toss around.
This Post is meant only to boost the ego of its author. . . It is an assault on new ideas and speculations with the total disregard of known science. . . Resonance is beyond your understanding along with relativity. . . The science in the Logical Universe is well in the bounds of observations and experimental proof. . . For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. . . (not my Quote)
My comments are meant to goad you to either answer some simple questions or admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am not trying to boost my ego, I realize that I am no where near as intelligent as many, many people on this forum. I suppose it just annoys me when people like you are so full of themselves and present their grand ideas expecting accolades when it is painfully obvious that they don't have any understanding of even basic physics or any science.
Are we going to keep doing this definition thing?
universe: all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
No.
Yes.
You didn't read my definition of "solid", did you?
A rock has no tendency to flow under moderate stress. It resists forces that tend to deform it. It retains a definite size and shape.
A galaxy, on the other hand, is made up of stars and other materials. It does not resist compressive forces. It does not retain a definite size and shape. In fact, the component stars all move relative to one another.
The main thing that distinguishes a galaxy from a rock in terms of solidity is the vast amount of space inside a galaxy compared to the space inside a rock. To put it more formally, I am taking about relative average densities. A galaxy is MUCH MUCH less dense than a rock.
knowerastronomy
Registered Member
I wonder what makes you the judge of who has the proper knowledge of science and who doesn't. . . What makes you the judge of people dare to question the standard model. . .
It seems you have a great knowledge about these things. . . It's to bad your science is not up to your standards. . .
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes, in order to better communicate your ideas compared to my ideas. I need to know that we are talking about the same thing when we both say universe. You apparently aren't speaking about the same thing as I when you say the word universe, according to your definition.
Infinite volume then, huh?
If you answer yes to the question "is the universe an expanding object," then we are not talking about the same thing when we say universe. According to my definition, the universe is not an object that is expanding, it is AN INFINITE VOLUME WITHOUT BORDERS THAT CONTAINS OBJECTS OF MASS. According to my definition, the universe in and of itself is not an object, but an infinite volume without borders. The universe can't expand according to my definition because it has no borders and is certainly not a defined object.
According to your definition, your universe expands. According to that, it expands in the infinite volume I refer to as the universe. So when you say the universe (the object) expands, you are thinking in smaller terms than I. My universe is all encompassing, while yours is simply an object that resides in my universe.
Yes I did, and I said it was all subjective. You didn't comprehend my response, did you?
So you are basically saying that my size determines your state of matter. If I was so small to travel through your "solid" without touching any matter, would that still be considered a solid according to your definition? If I passed through a galaxy without touching anything, would that be the same as passing though an atom without touching anything? You are very confused, James. You are correct on one account, that objects have different densities, but do you realize that the object's density doesn't stay the same, that objects get less dense over time, like your "universe" does??
Last edited:
I am judging YOUR idea based on my educaton in physics and engineering. You said in your earlier post:
There is absolutely no evidence that energy times rotation speed has anything to do with gravity - there is actually a great amount of evidence that says G=ER is wrong, hell physics tells us that G=ER doesn't even make any sense.
I have enough knowledge to recognize double talk and pseudo-science.
Motor Daddy:
Yes. It seems that way according to the latest data.
There's no problem with an infinite volume without borders expanding. Double the size of infinity and you get infinity. No problem.
I can't speak for your universe. We've already established that you have some fantasies that have nothing to do with the real world we live in. So, at this stage it is difficult to work out whether your universe is another fantasy or has some relation to the one I'm talking about - i.e. the real one.
No. If you want a shortcut, density is often a good thing to look at.
Yes. But what do you mean by "touching" in this context?
Maybe. All "touching" involves forces being exerted - either by electromagnetism, gravity or whatever. You might like to consider whether you could pass something through a galaxy leaving the galaxy unaffected by your passing. Then ask the same question about passing something through an atom.
No. In my interactions with you, I find that I invariably get to the bottom of your latest fantasy fairly quickly. Then, after months of discussion, you still fail to see that your fantasy is not real.
You seem to have a mental block against reality. Does that make you confused, or just an uneducatable fantacist? I'm not sure.
The computer I'm typing this on doesn't seem to get less dense over time. Why not? At what rate do things get less dense, according to you? And what is the cause of this decrease in density? Which of the four fundamental forces is involved?
Yes. It seems that way according to the latest data.
There's no problem with an infinite volume without borders expanding. Double the size of infinity and you get infinity. No problem.
I can't speak for your universe. We've already established that you have some fantasies that have nothing to do with the real world we live in. So, at this stage it is difficult to work out whether your universe is another fantasy or has some relation to the one I'm talking about - i.e. the real one.
No. If you want a shortcut, density is often a good thing to look at.
Yes. But what do you mean by "touching" in this context?
Maybe. All "touching" involves forces being exerted - either by electromagnetism, gravity or whatever. You might like to consider whether you could pass something through a galaxy leaving the galaxy unaffected by your passing. Then ask the same question about passing something through an atom.
No. In my interactions with you, I find that I invariably get to the bottom of your latest fantasy fairly quickly. Then, after months of discussion, you still fail to see that your fantasy is not real.
You seem to have a mental block against reality. Does that make you confused, or just an uneducatable fantacist? I'm not sure.
The computer I'm typing this on doesn't seem to get less dense over time. Why not? At what rate do things get less dense, according to you? And what is the cause of this decrease in density? Which of the four fundamental forces is involved?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No need for data on that one, James. That is the ONLY possibility. You can not have a finite volume without having an external volume. What do you recommend, a dead end sign is at the end of the volume? Turn around now, nothing to see here sign! It is impossible for there to be an end to the volume of space.
The problem seems to be with your understanding of infinity. Infinity has no size to double. Infinity is this <-------> in every direction. How do you propose to double the size of something that doesn't have a size because it has no borders? Again, you say the universe is expanding. So you must mean the universe has borders, and the borders are expanding, correct? That means your universe has a size. My universe is infinite and doesn't have a size, James.
No, what we've established is that I have an absolute frame to work in, so things may seem very weird to you because you don't know an absolute frame. Too bad, James. The absolute frame is wonderful!!
I mean making contact with matter. Objects are made of smaller objects. Objects have borders. There is space between objects. I mean travel through space between objects and not make contact with the object.
What I find is that you frequently find yourself in a circular argument and derail the conversation. Then, after several weeks you claim you debunked my logic (and I do mean logic).
Define reality, James? Are your "mainstream" ideas reality, or just a place mark until such time the truth reveals itself?
How long have you been monitoring your computer density? What measurements have you made? How accurate and precise is your test equipment? The way I see it, the computer can not stay the same density forever, it either has to get less dense or more dense over time. Do you propose the computer will get more dense over time, or stay the same in time? Let me remind you, James, we are talking about the real world, not a set of calculations on a piece of paper. In 100 million years, will your computer be less dense, the same, or more dense? Reminder, the same means perpetual motion. More dense means a force compacted the original mass (no external mass can be added) to a smaller volume. Less dense means the volume of the original mass got bigger. The second law of thermodynamics says the computer gets less dense over time!!!
Last edited:
Motor Daddy:
It would be great if, one day, you would familiarise yourself with the physics you are attempting to discuss before starting one of these conversations. It gets tiring having to introduce you to basic concepts from scratch every time we discuss something. It's even worse when you come out with the same crap a few weeks later, as if you don't remember any prior conversations or what you were taught last time.
This is why I have backed off spending much time and effort on you. If you get one-line responses from me, it is because I have found from experience with you that you just aren't worth effort. If you displayed a willingness to learn, or an open mind, or something like that, then progress might be possible, but I fear those things are probably beyond your present capacities.
Let me give you an analogy. Consider the surface of the Earth. That is an example of a finite area. Agree? Does it have an "external area" where there is more Earth-surface? i think you will agree it does not. And yet, you can walk/sail/fly in one direction along the Earth's surface and never hit a dead end sign at the end of the area.
The Earth's surface is an example of an area that is unbounded but finite. Now, recall that this was an analogy. I now tell you that the universe could logically be an unbounded but finite volume. Clearly you have never considered such a thing as a possibility. Now I have introduced you to the idea, I hope you will refrain from making silly statements about what we can and can't have in this regard.
No. The problem is with your understanding of infinity.
That's infinite size, not no size. Infinity and zero are not the same thing.
If it doesn't have a finite size, what prevents it from doubling in size?
No. Consider: move all the stars and galaxies in the universe so that they are twice as far apart as before. Adjust the "space" that contains the stars equivalently. No borders are required.
I've already debunked that nonsense.
All "contact" between matter is really a matter of interacting electromagnetic fields.
They are the best available description of reality that we have at present.
Just to compare: your ideas are all refuted by extant empirical evidence.
I don't see how your "matter expands to space" is anything new, if that's your explanation of it.
It would be great if, one day, you would familiarise yourself with the physics you are attempting to discuss before starting one of these conversations. It gets tiring having to introduce you to basic concepts from scratch every time we discuss something. It's even worse when you come out with the same crap a few weeks later, as if you don't remember any prior conversations or what you were taught last time.
This is why I have backed off spending much time and effort on you. If you get one-line responses from me, it is because I have found from experience with you that you just aren't worth effort. If you displayed a willingness to learn, or an open mind, or something like that, then progress might be possible, but I fear those things are probably beyond your present capacities.
Let me give you an analogy. Consider the surface of the Earth. That is an example of a finite area. Agree? Does it have an "external area" where there is more Earth-surface? i think you will agree it does not. And yet, you can walk/sail/fly in one direction along the Earth's surface and never hit a dead end sign at the end of the area.
The Earth's surface is an example of an area that is unbounded but finite. Now, recall that this was an analogy. I now tell you that the universe could logically be an unbounded but finite volume. Clearly you have never considered such a thing as a possibility. Now I have introduced you to the idea, I hope you will refrain from making silly statements about what we can and can't have in this regard.
No. The problem is with your understanding of infinity.
That's infinite size, not no size. Infinity and zero are not the same thing.
If it doesn't have a finite size, what prevents it from doubling in size?
No. Consider: move all the stars and galaxies in the universe so that they are twice as far apart as before. Adjust the "space" that contains the stars equivalently. No borders are required.
I've already debunked that nonsense.
All "contact" between matter is really a matter of interacting electromagnetic fields.
They are the best available description of reality that we have at present.
Just to compare: your ideas are all refuted by extant empirical evidence.
I don't see how your "matter expands to space" is anything new, if that's your explanation of it.
Actually you can have a.finite universe without the need for something external. I guess MD doesn't know much about manifolds and differential geometry but no one thought otherwise.