buddha elämuni Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Two galaxy population. Between the metric measurement. 10 000 billion years, and the metric measure of the atoms are split with the state of particles. The distance metric is stretched. "red-shifted" How much space is enlarged relative to the metric measure that is otherwise a stretched / expanded? . Quote
Pluto Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 G'day Hello I'm trying to understand the question. Quote
arkain101 Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Taking atoms from galaxies, then putting atoms 10,000 billion years apart? Is this what happens in the example? Ask again as clearly as you can. Quote
buddha elämuni Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happens for atoms after 1000 000 billion years? All atoms energy is expanding There is no stars at all. Stars energy it is "redshifting". If you take your leg and hand near your body, you dont emit/radiate yours energy so fast far away from you. Photons are small particle of energy and photons cant keep themselfs hot/density so easy, thats why light redshifting ( no doppler) You cant make a test with new quarks. You can look old light and new light and you can see what happend for photons because of entropy. You cant make any test with space. You cant proof, space expanding. Quote
freeztar Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 You cant make any test with space. You cant proof, space expanding. Well, then you need to explain why we see space expanding. :naughty:It's measurable and it *is* occurring, so, how do you explain this? I don't like the idea of space expanding. I don't like the idea of dark matter or DE. Yet, they help us describe the universe. They work! :) Quote
buddha elämuni Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Posted May 20, 2009 Well, then you need to explain why we see space expanding. :naughty:It's measurable and it *is* occurring, so, how do you explain this? I don't like the idea of space expanding. I don't like the idea of dark matter or DE. Yet, they help us describe the universe. They work! :) Really, do you really can see space? HOW it is possibility? No way dude. you cant see space. You can see stars, because stars exploding and emit/radiate particle like photons. Also photons exploding and emit/radiate energy all a time. You can look old light and new light and you can see what happend for old phtons. Redshifting ( no doppler) Redshifting dont proof space expanding. Redshifting proofs, photons exploding too. It is just about entropy in space who dont expanding. http://onesimpleprinciple.com/296 . Quote
freeztar Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Really, do you really can see space? HOW it is possibility? No way dude. you cant see space. You can see stars, because stars exploding and emit/radiate particle like photons. Also photons exploding and emit/radiate energy all a time. You can look old light and new light and you can see what happend for old phtons. Redshifting ( no doppler) Redshifting dont proof space expanding. Redshifting proofs, photons exploding too. It is just about entropy in space who dont expanding. One Simple Principle Introduction* Mapforpages* . Hey dude. Space expands. Redshift proves this. Ever heard of the CMBR? Entropy is a separate concept from redshift. You are correct that I can't see space. That would be reification. Yet, I see gamma ray bursts and x rays. I see UV telescope images just fine. :naughty: Quote
buddha elämuni Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Posted May 20, 2009 Redshift proofs, photons also exploding all a time. Science people say, space expanding far away from us. Is this science people been there, where space expanding? is this science people make any test with space who expanding? You dont have a theory of everything! Quess why? because you have stupid theory of expanding space. Occam cut off stupid theory. We dont need space who expanding. Space dont born. Space been there for ever. Like also energy whos density can changing in space who dont change at all. . Quote
buddha elämuni Posted May 20, 2009 Author Report Posted May 20, 2009 Check out some videos YouTube - Etimespace's Channel YouTube - Etimespace's Channel YouTube - 1. Theory (Idea) of expanding atoms. Kuopio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnmQWMLv53Q&feature=channel YouTube - 1. Idea from Kuopio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szE69GtZ8Jo&feature=channel_page Quote
stereologist Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Where do you get the infinite descent of increasing densities in particles? What allows the process to be done infinitely. The expanding atom is also done in an infinite manner. What allows that to happen? Quote
modest Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 Buddha elämuni, your posts are very nearly not understandable. Can you backup these claims with links or references to scientific sources? If not I'm afraid this thread could be moved to the strange claims forum. Redshift proofs, photons also exploding all a time. I believe you're saying that redshift proves that photons are expanding. By definition redshift is an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation when it is detected compared to the wavelength when it is emitted at the source. Where an increase in wavelength is characterized as "expansion" then I would agree with what you say. The photons are 'expanding' in a sense. Science people say, space expanding far away from us. Is this science people been there, where space expanding? Yes, current theories of cosmology including standard cosmology propose that space is expanding. You can think of "space" as distance. In cosmological models "expanding space" means that the distance between galaxies on large scales is increasing with time. If you look from the earth in any direction there are many observations which indicate astronomical objects are moving away from us including redshift, brightness, angular size, and time dilation (of supernova, for example). The more distant the objects are, the faster they are receding. This is known as Hubble's law. Cosmologists propose that just as we see other galaxies receding from us so too would other observers on distant worlds see galaxies receding from them. Otherwise, our position here on earth would be special (we would be at the center of the universe). Cosmologists propose that is not the case which is known as the cosmological principle. As you know, astronauts have not been to distant galaxies. Our conclusions regarding expanding space are drawn from observations made here on earth. You dont have a theory of everything! Quess why? because you have stupid theory of expanding space. Can you give us a source baking up the claim that the correct theory of everything omits expanding space? Occam cut off stupid theory. We dont need space who expanding. Space dont born. Space been there for ever. Like also energy whos density can changing in space who dont change at all.. Occam's razor asserts that when two competing theories can explain a physical phenomenon it is best to choose the theory which makes the least assumptions. Can you offer a theory which explains cosmic observations while making less assumptions than standard cosmology? ~modest Quote
stereologist Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 Thanks for the post Modest, but this is clearly baloney. I never expected a response. Quote
Pluto Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzz Modest you gave the perfect response. You have heart. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.