Inflation is pseudoscience.

[EndLightEnd]

If you take the view that I was describing, we would still be within our expanding arena heading for the greater universe where the energy density of our arena would finally become equalized with the lower energy density of the greater universe.

When that equalization occurs between our arena and the greater universe, our remnant galaxies and us (if Earth survives or we escape) will begin to mix and merge with other remnant galaxies and we will see uniform contraction toward a central point from all directions.

I like that idea about the energy density gradients. So essentially we observe acceleration because there is an energy density difference between our "newer" universe and the "older" universe. As we approach this "critical density" we should observe deceleration (Billions of years from now) right?

But once the energies equalize, why would we observe contraction instead of a steady-state?

 

[quantum_wave]

I like that idea about the energy density gradients. So essentially we observe acceleration because there is an energy density difference between our "newer" universe and the "older" universe. As we approach this "critical density" we should observe deceleration (Billions of years from now) right?

But once the energies equalize, why would we observe contraction instead of a steady-state?

No to both counts .

Acceleration will increase as we approach energy density equalization with the greater universe. The rate of acceleration has two primary factors. One is the momentum imparted to matter that formed in the early expansion. Expansion momentum was transfered from the "plasma" to the "particles" that formed and so the particles were all moving away from each other when they formed.


The second factor is gravity. Though the early particles had separation momentum, gravity at the sort distances between early particles was strong enough to overcome the expansion momentum. The result was that matter began to clump up and form stars. The stars that formed conserved the expansion momentum of the particles that made them up.

But still gravity was stronger locally than the expansion momentum and eventually stars formed galaxies. The galaxies also conserved the expansion momentum, but by the time galaxies formed the inverse square rule came into play and the local gravity of galaxies could not overcome the expansion momentum.

As a result the rate of separation will accelerate even though the expansion momentum remains relatively the same, the gravitation pull will continue to diminish relatively.

I say no the the question of steady state but there are two factors when you consider what is "stead state" in the greater universe. Contraction occurs because the remnant galaxies of other arenas similar to ours have also been dumped out there.

Gravity is still operative and with the mixing and mingling of remnant galaxies with angular momentum relative to each other, gravity begins to form swirls of remnants and the swirls combine into what can be called collapsing matter/energy into a smaller and smaller space as a new arena forms.

The collapse results in a big crunch, which then bursts in a fashion I have described in other posts based on a quantum limit I call "critical capacity".

The steady state of the greater universe is a landscape of expanding and contracting arenas. The frequency or I should say the number of such arenas within a given large sector of space depends on the average energy density of the greater universe.

This scenario is speculation and should not be allowed to influence young people and students until they have a good understanding of the standard cosmology.

 

[EndLightEnd]

The steady state of the greater universe is a landscape of expanding and contracting arenas. The frequency or I should say the number of such arenas within a given large sector of space depends on the average energy density of the greater universe.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I said "think density waves" in an earlier post. Youve explained it much clearer though.

 

[quantum_wave]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I said "think density waves" in an earlier post. Youve explained it much clearer though.

I have found that when I get a budding idea that fits consistently with my other ideas it doesn't take long to be able to put it into word salad that is generally tasty to those with an open mind . I trust you will find that to be the case with your ideas too.

First the ideas, then a consistency of ideas, then budding ideas added in, then word salad, and then if you have something someone else will like them and do the math, I hope oke:.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As you just deny what I say, it is not a lot of use. You look on your favourite internet sites, cannot find what I am saying there so decide I must be wrong. It's like trying to debate with a text book.

And yet despite the thousands of times I've posted I've never been found to plagerise my posts, unlike people like Reiku.

And the problem is you claim the stuff in a textbook is wrong but you offer no evidence. Like the claim inflation doesn't explain light elements. You just deny everything I say and that's 'not a lot of use'. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

So you are backing away from redshift is caused by expansion only idea?

The cooling effect on the charged particles isn't redshift. Don't you understand basic statistical physics?

I can refute all your criticisms

No, you just say "You're babbling" and ignore it. You just say "I don't have to provide maths" or "You're a textbook quoter". That's not refuting, it's just denying.

Your posts lie about your qualifications. Where is any original knowledge in them?

You still haven't explained all the evidence I've provided about my qualifications. You're just denying what I'm saying. People like Prometheus, QuarkHead, Ben, Rpenner and Euler know who I am. I've exchanged emails, from my university address, with all of them and met two of them.

I've repeatedly asked you to debunk the evidence I provide. You generally ignore it. Despite claiming you refute all my criticisms. You don't refute, you ignore. That's how you post. And when someone agrees with me, you label them as brainwashed too and another loser.

If you have all this evidence and understanding, why aren't you getting your original work published? You know all the mainstream physicists are wrong on so many things but here you are, a nobody online who thinks he's got Nobel Prize winners beat but cannot answer direct questions like "Where's your justification for that claim?". And you have to see conspiracies just because someone else banned you from PhysOrg. Of course there's no way to disprove your claim, that's the reason you make it. Nothing I provide as evidence can prove I'm not just doubling as a mod. But nothing to provide can prove it either, since you're incorrect.

I have explained why I think you were a mod there. Not simple enough it appears as you still don't understand. Crayons and paper anyone?

Because you got banned for being insulting to people? Ubanatuva thinks I'm a chatbot because I can type at a heady speed of 33 words a minute. Neither of those are justified claims.

And I don't agree with you because I know the truth, that I'm not a moderator. And since I don't agree, you make the claim I don't understand. Why haven't I banned all the people I think are as ignorant and mad as you? Why is PhysOrg swarming with cranks if I'm a moderator?

I have made a bet with you over coin tossing. Why won't you take it?

You haven't explained why the fluctuations cancel out exactly at 2 trillion. What about at 1 trillion? 1 million? 100?

I'm not denying it's possible to get exactly 50/50 with a finite measurement. Just toss two coins and there's a 50% chance you'll get 1 head and 1 tail. In primary school we once did it 100 times. One group for exactly 50/50. The rest got a spread from 40/60 to 60/40. So even if one trial of 2 trillion flips did get 50/50 exactly it wouldn't guarentee it would be 50/50 next time. That's why it's probabilities and not exact physics.

A more accurate measurement would be to repeat the experiment say 10 times and see what you get. I'll pay you £10,000 (which is within my means to pay) if you do it 5 times and get exactly the result you claim, 10 times.

How's that for a bet? 5 times the effort, 10 times the reward. If you think asking me to do 2 trillion coin flips is worth £1000, then 10 trillion should easily be worth £10,000 of your time.

What CMB?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm

A man with 50 years in the field pointed out that in hundreds of places, what the WMAP was supposedly reading for the CMB at the edge of the observable universe matched HI signatures in our own galaxy, so were almost certainly in our own galaxy. WMAP sounds like something you built.

Notice the high number of citers who didn't get published.

Besides, surely the fact some interpretations against the mainstream are a healthy thing? Doesn't mean it's valid scientifically. For instance, this citer founds errors in their analysis and gives a mainstream explaination, via a less assumptive model.

So simply pulling out what is later a discredited result doesn't mean it's valid. But then media sites never go back correct errors and stay online for years. Dig a little deeper next time.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

What did I say about your holiday? I might have slept through that bit as your posts are so interesting. Yawn!

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18679&st=80&#entry276347

That was also the section of your posts where you claimed you were responsible for all my posts outside Relativity + New Theories on PhysOrg, despite me providing instant evidence against that.

Notice in that thread you also has your signature at the time. , which I comment on, set to the claim I couldn't fit in work and posting into a single day. Which I explained to you. Yet you made the same claim on these forums just a week or so ago and 'pretended' not to remember I'd already explained to you the time table of my day. Remember you saying "Do you teleport to the office" here. Also forgetting I'd told you, in that thread on PhysOrg, I don't have class any more. Yet another thing you forgot. So either your memory is terrible or you deliberately lie. Which one is it?

You've been saying I'm a loser and a liar for more than a year now and still haven't managed to back up any of your claims. And every one of these threads just increases the list of claims you have refused to back up when asked. Your style of posting hasn't changed, "lphaNumeric. I read your post and it's the same old garbage. I used to pick out all the faults with creationists but it ended up a waste of time as they ignored what I said as you are doing. Bit of a waste of time explaining why you are wrong if you ignore what I say and just offer insults in return. Got anything else to say other than "you're wrong!" and then some insults? ". Except my style of posting involves addressing people's errors one at a time and providing evidence against them. Which you then like to avoid, even when I highlight in read to show I'm asking a direct question. I have to make it simple for you otherwise you ignore them. But you still ignore them now, whining about crayons. No, it just makes it easy for everyone to see important things you've ignored. The fact you don't understand this points to either subpar intelligence or deliberate lies. But as all us 'losers' have pointed out, you seem to fit those descriptions pretty well anyway.

 

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. On top of posting a lot on several forums and supposedly studying for a PhD, you now claim to be teaching too. When do you fit in sleep?

You just post from internet sites or what you have been taught and claim anyone who deviates from that is wrong, posting what you believe to be right but not explaining why people are wrong.

Unfortunately I can't use physorg to show where I proved you wrong a number of times. I do have trouble keeping up with your latest lying claims so hardly a bad memory.

A lot of ranting in your post. Looks like you know you are losing yet again. What's new?

 

[kaneda]

And yet despite the thousands of times I've posted I've never been found to plagerise my posts, unlike people like Reiku.

You have never deviated one nanometre from the work of others.

And the problem is you claim the stuff in a textbook is wrong but you offer no evidence. Like the claim inflation doesn't explain light elements. You just deny everything I say and that's 'not a lot of use'. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.
The cooling effect on the charged particles isn't redshift. Don't you understand basic statistical physics?
No, you just say "You're babbling" and ignore it. You just say "I don't have to provide maths" or "You're a textbook quoter". That's not refuting, it's just denying.
You still haven't explained all the evidence I've provided about my qualifications. You're just denying what I'm saying. People like Prometheus, QuarkHead, Ben, Rpenner and Euler know who I am. I've exchanged emails, from my university address, with all of them and met two of them.

Stuff like strings, Higgs bosons, DE, DM, supersymmetry, gravitons, BB, etc are in text books and the solid real world proof for them is......missing.

A photon interacts and loses energy by that interaction, that is redshift. Do I have to explain everything to you?

Prometheus and Quarkhead I don't know. Euler is Youler. Rpigpenner, who cares. Ben I have nothing to do with.

I've repeatedly asked you to debunk the evidence I provide. You generally ignore it. Despite claiming you refute all my criticisms. You don't refute, you ignore. That's how you post. And when someone agrees with me, you label them as brainwashed too and another loser.

Like a good little creationist, you just deny everything I tell you. That is not evidence.

If you have all this evidence and understanding, why aren't you getting your original work published? You know all the mainstream physicists are wrong on so many things but here you are, a nobody online who thinks he's got Nobel Prize winners beat but cannot answer direct questions like "Where's your justification for that claim?".

What benefit to me for publishing work? What do I care?

And you have to see conspiracies just because someone else banned you from PhysOrg. Of course there's no way to disprove your claim, that's the reason you make it. Nothing I provide as evidence can prove I'm not just doubling as a mod. But nothing to provide can prove it either, since you're incorrect.
Because you got banned for being insulting to people? Ubanatuva thinks I'm a chatbot because I can type at a heady speed of 33 words a minute. Neither of those are justified claims.

Still got a guilty conscience I see. You are like a chatbot with access to text book info since you show no originality and never stray from them.

And I don't agree with you because I know the truth, that I'm not a moderator. And since I don't agree, you make the claim I don't understand. Why haven't I banned all the people I think are as ignorant and mad as you? Why is PhysOrg swarming with cranks if I'm a moderator?
You haven't explained why the fluctuations cancel out exactly at 2 trillion. What about at 1 trillion? 1 million? 100?

I'm not denying it's possible to get exactly 50/50 with a finite measurement. Just toss two coins and there's a 50% chance you'll get 1 head and 1 tail. In primary school we once did it 100 times. One group for exactly 50/50. The rest got a spread from 40/60 to 60/40. So even if one trial of 2 trillion flips did get 50/50 exactly it wouldn't guarentee it would be 50/50 next time. That's why it's probabilities and not exact physics.

Prove me wrong instead of just claiming I am wrong. Ever larger samples head towards 50%, as the wiki shows.

A more accurate measurement would be to repeat the experiment say 10 times and see what you get. I'll pay you £10,000 (which is within my means to pay) if you do it 5 times and get exactly the result you claim, 10 times.

How's that for a bet? 5 times the effort, 10 times the reward. If you think asking me to do 2 trillion coin flips is worth £1000, then 10 trillion should easily be worth £10,000 of your time.
Notice the high number of citers who didn't get published.

I bet you first and now you have backed out of it and want to bet me. Loser.

Besides, surely the fact some interpretations against the mainstream are a healthy thing? Doesn't mean it's valid scientifically. For instance, this citer founds errors in their analysis and gives a mainstream explaination, via a less assumptive model.

So simply pulling out what is later a discredited result doesn't mean it's valid. But then media sites never go back correct errors and stay online for years. Dig a little deeper next time.

I posted a reply email on physorg where I had contacted a site about a reference paper some years ago claimed that he had proof of the speed of light being instantaneous, with supposed evidence. In the end, the guy turned out to be fake and the site had never been updated it. I do email scientists but have yet to get a reply from any of them.

 

[Read-Only]

I do email scientists but have yet to get a reply from any of them.

Wow, I wonder why that is????

(NOT!!! Because they are only interested in science, not garbage.):bugeye:

Thank you for finally posting something truthful and exposing your pure ignorance of real science - it's about time!!!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You have never deviated one nanometre from the work of others.

How do you know? Prove to me that I've not done any work others haven't provided me. You cannot because it would require you to know the work I do, the contents of my hard drive, the work written on the paper on my desk and the information in my head.

Given you are unwilling to discuss any of those things, despite my repeated offers, you are simply repeating what you hope to be true, not what you can demonstrate is true.

Stuff like strings, Higgs bosons, DE, DM, supersymmetry, gravitons, BB, etc are in text books and the solid real world proof for them is......missing.

So you think that anything which is predicted but which we don't already have observational knowledge of is wrong?

How do you explain predictions like gravitational redshift, as measured on the Earth, antimatter and the 3rd particle family of the Standard Model? I've given many examples of things which were predicted by theoretical physicists years, even decades, before they were then seen.

A photon interacts and loses energy by that interaction, that is redshift. Do I have to explain everything to you?

No, redshift is the photon, without being absorbed by a charged particle, having it's wavelength (and thus energy and momentum) reduced by gravitational processes. A photon interacting with electrons means it's actually absorbed, thus no longer existing, and then the electron emits a new photon which has less energy.

That can be done by shining a light into a gas of electrons to warm it slightly, expanding the gas to cool it (as per basic thermodynamics) and then watching the thermal radiation. Because it has cooled, the emitted radiation will be of lower energy, but that isn't redshifting.

Do I need to explain everything to you? Clearly I do.

Like a good little creationist, you just deny everything I tell you. That is not evidence.

You deny everything I tell you. I provide evidence and explanations. I provide retorts to everything you claim. I don't ignore questions. You ignore questions, don't offer evidence, don't give explanations. Out of the two of us, your methodology of posting resembles creationists the most.

What benefit to me for publishing work? What do I care?

If you don't care, why are you on this website? Why do you enter discussions with people? If you are unhappy about people on this forum believing in the big bang and strings, why are you happy to have the mainstream physics community, who teach the younger generation all about their views, to believe in what you consider lies and angels dancing on pin heads?

Your logic is inconsistent. If you didn't care, you'd not come to forums like this and PhysOrg and whine. But you do come online. So why aren't you putting your physics where your mouth is and getting the 'truth' out to the people who can alter the entire educational system of the world?

Still got a guilty conscience I see.

If I were a mod on PhysOrg, I would have absolutely zero guilt for banning you.

You are like a chatbot with access to text book info since you show no originality and never stray from them.

And yet I offer to explain things to you which I have come up with myself. You don't want to discuss things. How can you and I discuss my originality when you don't want to discuss it?

I repeat my offer of discussing my work with you. I want to show you my work, if you will discuss it. Do you accept? I have results that noone else has done, original work I have developed. Do you wish to see it?

Prove me wrong instead of just claiming I am wrong. Ever larger samples head towards 50%, as the wiki shows.

Heading towards 50% is exactly what I've been saying. You claim it gets to 50% at some finite value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Note that the rigorous statements all involve $$n \to \infty$$, not $$n \to 10^{12}$$ as you are claiming. I have never denied it tends to 50%. I deny it happens to become exact at 2 trillion, which is what you claim.

I bet you first and now you have backed out of it and want to bet me. Loser.

I have shown you that Wikipedia agrees with me. I've given you multiple links from the website which show that the limit of the probabilities become exact is not 'a large but finite number of samples' but an infinite number of samples.

And you know full well that your bet was nothing but a vacuous one. Firstly, you have previously refused to engage me in a bet to publish your work because you didn't want to reveal your name to me, so why are you suddenly willing to bet now? Secondly, I am sure you wouldn't pay up unless you gave the money to a third, trusted, party before hand and given you trust noone that isn't going to happen. Thirdly, I could write a computer program to sample a random process like atmospheric noise which would sample a random process 2 trillion times but you probably wouldn't accept that because you'd demand I do it with an actual coin. 2 trillion samples at 1 sample every second is a little over 63,000 years. So your bet cannot be achieved. So it was nothing but an attempt to provide an excuse for you to ignore the mathematical derivations of the 'law of large numbers', which I've always said contradicts your claims (and is precisely what Wikipedia has been telling you, despite your claim Wiki agrees with you).

Do you understand the law of large numbers? Do you understand that the measured result only goes to exactly the theoretical result when the number of samples goes to infinity?

If you refuse to engage in this discussion, why should anyone believe your claim when you cannot show you even understand it?

I do email scientists but have yet to get a reply from any of them.

Do you email them with "You're a loser counting the number of angels dancing on a pin head. Strings and inflation are BS!" or do you say something along the lines of "I read your paper in JHEP and the derivation of equation 17 is flawed because you assume the existence of a Kahler function over a non-simply connected manifold with cohomology... [blah blah blah] and so we can see that your assumption that such a function exists is incorrect. Thanks for your time.". I have emailed people asking for clarification in their papers and they email back because I'm polite and show I have working understanding of said physics and maths. But you aren't and you don't.

Now, do you want to discuss work I claim to be original which I've done myself or are you going to continue refusing to discuss it but then complain there's no discussion on it? That is entirely your fault, not mine.

 

[kaneda]

Wow, I wonder why that is????

(NOT!!! Because they are only interested in science, not garbage.):bugeye:

Thank you for finally posting something truthful and exposing your pure ignorance of real science - it's about time!!!

Congratulations on finally learning to spell. I suppose it must be a bit hard for you doing emails, using crayons. How many scientists have you had answers from? Captain Kangaroo? Mr Blobby?

 

[kaneda]

How do you know? Prove to me that I've not done any work others haven't provided me. You cannot because it would require you to know the work I do, the contents of my hard drive, the work written on the paper on my desk and the information in my head.

I go by your posts here and physorg. All a waste of time because all the information you posted is available to anyone with a search engine.

Given you are unwilling to discuss any of those things, despite my repeated offers, you are simply repeating what you hope to be true, not what you can demonstrate is true.
So you think that anything which is predicted but which we don't already have observational knowledge of is wrong?

Babbling again!

How do you explain predictions like gravitational redshift, as measured on the Earth, antimatter and the 3rd particle family of the Standard Model? I've given many examples of things which were predicted by theoretical physicists years, even decades, before they were then seen.
No, redshift is the photon, without being absorbed by a charged particle, having it's wavelength (and thus energy and momentum) reduced by gravitational processes. A photon interacting with electrons means it's actually absorbed, thus no longer existing, and then the electron emits a new photon which has less energy.

Have I ever said I did not accept gravitational redshift? We know from quasars how it messes up so called redshift due to expansion.

Where are the examples you have given, outside your deluded mind that is?

I thought we were talking about expansion and you are talking about gravitational redshift.

An electric current works by electrons being absorbed and readmitted. One might say that as far as the current is concerned, the original electrons "no longer exist".

That can be done by shining a light into a gas of electrons to warm it slightly, expanding the gas to cool it (as per basic thermodynamics) and then watching the thermal radiation. Because it has cooled, the emitted radiation will be of lower energy, but that isn't redshifting.

A gas chamber is like a billion light years of space how?

The rest is just the usual self righteous ranting about how smart you are and how stupid every other poster is. Poor, poor OmegaNumeric.

 

[Read-Only]

An electric current works by electrons being absorbed and readmitted. One might say that as far as the current is concerned, the original electrons "no longer exist".

I laughed at THIS one so hard that I nearly fell out of my chair!!!!!!!!

And what the heck is "readmitted" supposed to mean in this context??? (One could suppose the dummy meant "re-emitted" but since he NEVER makes a spelling error or uses the wrong word, that can't be it.)

I've never seen anyone with the most basic education make such a stupid claim about electric current. That has got to go down as a classic ignoramus in action!! Heh!

 

[Enmos]

Inflation is real !
Watch closely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzP_F45Frc

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I go by your posts here and physorg. All a waste of time because all the information you posted is available to anyone with a search engine.

And yet you didn't know about the evidence the mainstream community has for inflation, despite it being all over ArXiv. You didn't know the FRW metric works for hyperspheres, flat planes and open, AdS, spaces. You don't know any closed, boundary-less manifolds in 4 dimensions other than a hypersphere. You didn't know the mainstream model for perturbations from homogeneity and isotropy.

All of those things can be found online. Easily. Yet despite your subject of choice being inflation and the BB, you didn't know about them? Why?

Babbling again!

Simply saying "I refuse to reply to this" after I offer to talk about original work with you doesn't mean I haven't made the offer. It means you are not willing to discuss it, yet you claim it's my fault there's no dialogue in that regard? Hardly babbling, just pointing out your inconsistent attempts at arguments.

Have I ever said I did not accept gravitational redshift? We know from quasars how it messes up so called redshift due to expansion.

Where are the examples you have given, outside your deluded mind that is?

I thought we were talking about expansion and you are talking about gravitational redshift.

I mentioned gravitational redshift, antimatter and the 3rd family in the SM as examples of things predicted before they were seen. You keep saying it's a waste of physicists time to predict things they haven't seen, yet history tells us otherwise.

Do you not understand that?

A gas chamber is like a billion light years of space how?

You do realise there's hydrogen gas in space, right? It's not a perfect vacuum and so over 13 billion years there's going to be interactions with the hydrogen out there. Infact, the photons form a dynamic equilibrium with electrons and positrons because they can convert between one another.

An electric current works by electrons being absorbed and readmitted. One might say that as far as the current is concerned, the original electrons "no longer exist".

I'm at a loss to see the relevance and as James points out, it's a pretty questionable thing you just said.

The rest is just the usual self righteous ranting about how smart you are and how stupid every other poster is. Poor, poor OmegaNumeric.

So I list examples of you showing denial and you lying that I never addressed the "How did the BB expand from such a dense state" question and you're just going to avoid saying "You're right, I was wrong" by pretending it's not there for everyone to read. Similarly with the Wikipedia links and the probabilities. If you're right, you should be able to, rationally, discuss it. Instead you have to just say "Wiki agrees with me", despite my demonstration otherwise.

Whenever you're backed into enough of a corner you just pick up something else to concentrate your whining on and label everything else as 'blathering', hoping people won't see how much of a dodge that is. Then you complain I don't answer your questions and claims!

Your posts are mostly insults and denial. I provide backup to what I say. You cannot even find a comparable level of evidence for your claims, despite you claiming it's easy to find online. How can we discuss advanced or new topics when you don't even know about the simple ones?

 

[Reiku]

All made up because it was necessary for the big bang idea to work.

Yes, well, the biggest flaw of inflation, is the actual age of the universe. If it is any less, or any more, the background temperatures would cease to be homogenous. For this reason, scientists insideously persist the use of an inflationary perdiod, which happened early on in the universe.

In fact, some astrophysicists, also noted by Einstein himself, and even other notable astrophysicists, such as Lerner, knew that certain supergalaxies, mathematically, would take longer than 10 billion years to form, which may alone hold mistakes for inflation.

Even The Great Hoyle, Astrophysicist and Sir Fred, proclaimed that big bang was nonesense, and would even preclude the inflation period itself.

 

[quantum_wave]

I haven't learned how to completely delete a post yet, but forget what I just said that you can't see anymore anyway, lol.

 

[kaneda]

Read-Only. I don't claim to be a genius like you. I made one spelling mistake BECAUSE I WATCH TV AS I POST. What's your excuse for making so many mistakes in a single post?

Do you understand the use of " " marks around a phrase? Or was you off school that year when they were mentioned?

How could you fall out of your chair? Surely they strap you in?

You seem to laugh a lot from your post here and elsewhere. Are you sure it is laughing and not gibbering? There is a difference.

 

[kaneda]

Reiku. At a millionth of a second, you have a whole universe full of matter in a very tiny space and despite being maybe trillions of times the necessary density for a black hole, the universe expands. It's magic!

Some crazies even claim that space expands in areas, to accomplish inflation.

Later you have hydrogen and helium expanding. Expansion at the rim is limited to light speed so in a very large universe, it "barely moves" but in the early period when the universe was tiny, it would have expanded very fast so that structures like stars would not form with every single atom expanding away from every other atom at speed.

 

[kaneda]

Inflation is real !
Watch closely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzP_F45Frc

Sorry. I have rubbish internet, about 2 kbs.