And that is quite interesting!
Perhaps now the universe is expanding on the surface of this new light, and perhaps it is also shrinking inside? ...Like two confrontational forces of opposition creating the movement of life itself?
The Big Bang theory, the large Hadron Collider. ...Fascinating!
Yes yes yes. How did you figure out that a black hole was a hole for me?
Because I asked if it has an entrance and an exit?
Very interesting that you assumed that I was thinking 'a hole'.
I have no clue of what a black hole exactly consists of (matter). ...And some aren't so sure if there is an exit door or not. ...And how truly deep black it is, if not purple from another light's angle we simply cannot reach?
* "Mass on earth is mainly an illusion ... empty space between the atoms."
Mountains, rivers, animals, trees, people, skyscrapers, ...all in illusion?
...And they might be back once in a while during before after. ;-)
* And the rest; they talk the talk just for the talk? :-D
Last edited:
I do believe you answered you own question .
\A far as an illusions........ no not from from our perception but on an atomic level yes.
Expansion of far out unknown regions of space (deep universe of infinity).
Einstein; did he say too that man uses only less than 1% (10%) of his brain, total? Where went the rest? ...In space?
Last edited:
I do believe you answered you own question .
Alright, they talked about an exit; I did not invent that.
And the entrance is simply the discovery of the black hole.
...A hole, a gap, a patch on the surface of space?
Atomic level, ...ok.
So, on an atomic level my bank account is empty?
Maybe that is why chaos endures indefinitely
When you start to think in this direction, there's lots of things that follow Darwin's Theory of Everything. Communism. B/W movies. Homo Australopithecus (sp?). Printed books (getting ahead of myself).
Jan
But, it's important because the speed is constant and the red shift comes be because the universe is expanding, not because light is slowing down.
Maybe it was just time for someone to post something that was true and wasn't nonsense.
The red shift comes because the yardstick of space has become smaller
where once evenly distributed dark matter has thinned. Supermassive
donuts having accrued and absconded with much of said yardsticks.
Everything inside the snowglobe changes in proportion with the yardstick
except the constant, possibly infinite, size of the snowglobe itself.
It matters not if the speed of light is constant and the measure of space
changes, or we say that the measure of space is constant and the speed
of light changes. They are exactly equivalent statements.
Exactly equivalent, except yours leads back to a pinpoint that contained
everything. And an early speed of light rule violation. There has to be
another way to look at the same data that doesn't divide by zero and
defend the broken conclusions as a matter of unquestionable cannon.
Not literally divide by zero, though it could be. Just saying an error in
solving the problem leads to a ridiculous answer. I reject today's most
poupular answer on the grounds that it violates both Pauli exclusion
and speed of light with no explanation whatsoever. Then uses speed
of light and entrenched popularity to defend itself. Glorious logic that...
Last edited:
Well Ken, it is what it is and it's full of paradoxes I am afraid. Was it Einstein who said the universe is even stranger than we think?
Let me put it another way. I would not try to tell one of our Fellows in my company how to design IC's. These are individuals who have spent years honing their knowledge, craft etc have become industry acknowledged experts and have large bodies of work to back their positions up.
Why then do some people think, on something as complex and profoundly non-intuitive as relativity and cosmology, they can dismiss in one paragraph 100 years of research, intellectual achievement and a huge body of corroborating evidence that relativity is indeed a very, very good explanation for the way the universe works at a macro scale?
And, it's easy (and fun) to postulate on some of these things, but putting pen to paper and proving it is an entirely different matter. Higgs bosun springs to mind, as does string theory. One is a tick in the box, the other still floundering. And so it goes.
These things are intellectually hard to do. Period.
However, I am quite well positioned to be able tell JC how to design a power amplifier
Let me put it another way. I would not try to tell one of our Fellows in my company how to design IC's. These are individuals who have spent years honing their knowledge, craft etc have become industry acknowledged experts and have large bodies of work to back their positions up.
Why then do some people think, on something as complex and profoundly non-intuitive as relativity and cosmology, they can dismiss in one paragraph 100 years of research, intellectual achievement and a huge body of corroborating evidence that relativity is indeed a very, very good explanation for the way the universe works at a macro scale?
And, it's easy (and fun) to postulate on some of these things, but putting pen to paper and proving it is an entirely different matter. Higgs bosun springs to mind, as does string theory. One is a tick in the box, the other still floundering. And so it goes.
These things are intellectually hard to do. Period.
However, I am quite well positioned to be able tell JC how to design a power amplifier
Last edited:
J.B.S. Haldane. “Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
I agree, but I see either as contradictory. C cannot be both constant and changing at the same time. I don't think anyone was proposing such a thing, BTW.
And of course change is "universal." No need to credit/blame Darwin for that rather obvious realization. And "survival of the fittest" was T.H. Huxley's, not Darwin's...
Perhaps Einstein did not dare to admit he didn't understand it himself, because of the errors still in his theory...
imho a good theory leaves no room for paradoxes.
please take the trouble to rethink your statement.. the expanding universe is not the only reason for red-shift. Mass (gravitational pull) influences the propagation of light. Accurate laser-measurements indicated that passing a large mass slows them down a bit. We've moved on since Einstein..
I am proposing it. If in fact C is both constant and changing, could be proof.
That you can solve the problem two or more ways and get the same answer...
The fixed size snowglobe universe that bangs everywhere at once, and the
expanding singularity that bangs from a pinpoint are exactly the same thing.
Its all relative to what you consider constant, nothing more...
In my universe, the speed of light is variable, and infinity is constant.
In your universe, the speed of light is constant, and infinity is variable.
Same things, only completely different, only maybe they aren't different.
Only my universe is infinitely better; Because I said so...
If your unit of measure were the absolute size of a presumed expanding
universe, then the speed of light in such a unit has definitely changed.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.