Can we/you number the amount of quantum particles in the universe...?

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not at all up on the latest cosmological thinking, but aren't there also neutrinos? It's my understanding that every cubic millimeter of the universe is filled with billions of them. Which to me, would seem to negate the idea of empty space.

Yes, but they are even harder to detect than dust..... and clearly they can't even get the amount of dust correct right next door at the edge of our solar system....

One thing is for sure, there is much, much more matter than has been accounted for, yet they never revise their estimates, just keep talking about needing too, because that would throw off their calculations of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which is their current pseudoscientific cash cow.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not at all up on the latest cosmological thinking, but aren't there also neutrinos? It's my understanding that every cubic millimeter of the universe is filled with billions of them. Which to me, would seem to negate the idea of empty space.

Indeed, it isn't empty, it's permeated with quantum fields in constant fluctuation. These fluctuations are the source of the sea of 'virtual particles' continually being created and annihilating each other.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if it were a big bang, we should some kind of dispersal pattern, or some curvature of it or to it, what we can see of the universe, unless were not seeing very much of it at all, that is, which should place the center origin point, if it has one, way, way far away, and making the universe unbelievably huge...

The model that fits our observations best at present is that the big bang wasn't an explosion that happened at a particular point or place. It was an expansion of the whole universe from a hot dense state, so there was no centre of expansion. The universe may even have been infinite in extent at the big bang.

The currently popular (but not universally accepted) 'Eternal Inflation' hypothesis, which explains several otherwise puzzling observations, proposes that our universe is one of a potentially infinite number that are created when spots in an eternally inflating universe of metastable spacetime (the 'false vacuum') collapse to a more stable state, the flood of energy released each time producing a 'bubble' universe like our own, that undergoes its own expansion (big bang) - in what, from the perspective of the unstable parent, might appear to be an atom-sized black hole, but from inside the 'bubble' appears to be an infinite spacetime (how this is possible in General Relativity is treated in more detail in Max Tegmark's book 'Our Mathematical Universe' pp.114-116, and Brian Greene's book 'The Hidden Reality').

 

[durangodawood]

Ive counted 247 particles so far. Looks like Ive got a long way to go. Will keep you all posted.

82,305..... and counting

 

[FredVB]

I answered what I could of my understanding, as I said.

There isn't basis to say that the universe must have started 46.5 billion years ago, and it cannot be explained how all the mass of the whole universe came from a nondimensional point. I could speak to that. It is beyond my ability and I have to appeal to what scientists themselves explain how the age of the universe is determined. What I have shown does not all rest on one individual, such as Wendy Freedman, but there isn't something wrong in what Freedman said. There is the consensus with the approaches that determine what the age of the universe is, that they are showing.

I could not determine it like that, as I say. But what scientists determine for the age is not at all the 46.5 billion years claimed for it, that I was responding to. This was why I answered with what was quoted. If the universe was made with billions of years involved up to now, there is not really basis to say it was started 46.5 billion years ago.

We can account for 46.5 billion light years of time, travel and motion and drift of the objects "away from us as the center" (which is part of the logic problem) (I will explain in a minute) (cause it should not all be really moving out and away from us as the center and at increasing speeds the further away) (anyway).. We can account for all of those factors of how long ago were seeing them away opposed to where they are or should be now, and the age still has to be older than 46.5 billion years old, considering everything we now know and can see and all the evidence, it all has to be much older than 13.8 billion years old...

We should not appear to be the center but we do, and determining what and where and how fast objects are moving or not moving away from what or us, is all flawed, cause everything could really be moving at and equal rate everywhere or nothing could be really even moving at all maybe...

Anyway, if it were a big bang, we should some kind of dispersal pattern, or some curvature of it or to it, what we can see of the universe, unless were not seeing very much of it at all, that is, which should place the center origin point, if it has one, way, way far away, and making the universe unbelievably huge...

And we say it's speeding up or the expansion is speeding up because of the Big Bang, when if the Big Bang were true, it should be slowing down, not speeding up, unless we were in the very beginning of it, which I don't believe... Their is another reason for the accelerating expansion...

We should not appear to be the center, especially wherever we are either...

But if this universes is billions of years old, no one is claiming they see the distant objects from 46.5 billion years ago. There is no center with this scenario. What is described is that we are at the center of all we see as far as we see. But light does not get to us from farther than that. So there is still any amount more of the universe that isn't known about. Space itself expands, it is not speed of objects through space then which explains the expansion, and with curvature of space, the objects of the universe are equally on all sides, and the universe expanded from being much smaller, but without any center in space from which it all expands. So it is not explained as an explosion as such. So not everything moves away at the same speed. With it being expansion of space, objects closer don't move away much from the expansion, objects very far away relative to the size of the seeable universe move away much more rapidly.

 

[Neogaia777]

But if this universes is billions of years old, no one is claiming they see the distant objects from 46.5 billion years ago.

Yes, they are and they are not just claiming it, but it is a fact, anything that we see from far away from us, however far away it is from us, that is how old or how long ago they say they are seeing it, which would need to accounted for...

There is no center with this scenario. What is described is that we are at the center of all we see as far as we see. But light does not get to us from farther than that.

Yes it does, (light) but it is said to be that old or we are seeing it that old, due to how fast light travels or the speed of light, hence "light years"...

And, we are obviously not the center, so why does it appear that way, or that we are...?

So there is still any amount more of the universe that isn't known about.

There is plenty we can't see of know about, but what's your point, cause we do have what we do and can see and know about...?

Space itself expands, it is not speed of objects through space then which explains the expansion,

I do realize that you know...

and with curvature of space, the objects of the universe are equally on all sides, and the universe expanded from being much smaller, but without any center in space from which it all expands.

I'm not talking about the curvature of space, but the curvature we should see overall, or in the big picture of it, or the, or a, or any kind of dispersal pattern inherent with any kind of single origin point, big bang theory, that we should see some of the "curve" or circle or that, unless were just not seeing very much of it, or the big bang is not exactly true...

If it was smaller at one time then how does it not expand from that smaller area, and the Big Bang Theory says it has to expanding from some kind of single origin point, which we should be able to tell or see unless were just not seeing very much of it at all that is, which would make it very, very big, if the Big Bang is true...

So it is not explained as an explosion as such.

Yes that is what the Big Bang claims, or at the very least it claims a single center point of origin, that burst forth or exploded, from that point, just like an explosion, that, unless were in the very, very beginnings of it, should not be accelerating or speeding up, but slowing down, but it's not, it's supposedly speeding up...

So not everything moves away at the same speed.

No, I theorize that is all moving at the same speed, if anything is really said to be moving at all, that is, and it's all at the same speed everywhere, which is the speed of light... I think it is the only speed, universally speaking... And the only reason we don't see that is because of where we are in it, and our vantage point or where we are looking at it from in it...

But if we were to look at it all from outside of that, I think we would see it all moving at the same speed equally everywhere (speed of light) if anything is said to really be moving at all that is, and it is not expanding, nor ever was expanding from any kind of single center point or point of origin, but we would see something other than that, if we were to be looking at it from outside of it, and not in it...

With it being expansion of space, objects closer don't move away much from the expansion, objects very far away relative to the size of the seeable universe move away much more rapidly.

It "appears that way", one, outward from us which doesn't makes sense, and two, because of our vantage point or where we are looking at it all from "in it" or being in it...

It "appears that way", but that appearance is deceptive, and it is actually not how it appears to be, if you were to look at it all from some point "outside" of it...

Or how would you explain that wherever you were at in it, anywhere in it, or even as you would travel in or through it, it would always appear that you were the center, things further away from you moving faster away from you as the center, from wherever you were, or where you were at in it, ect...

But I propose that that appearance is not how it really is, but that appearance is kind of deceptive, and/or is lying to us, basically...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, they are and they are not just claiming it, but it is a fact, anything that we see from far away from us, however far away it is from us, that is how old or how long ago they say they are seeing it, which would need to accounted for...



Yes it does, (light) but it is said to be that old or we are seeing it that old, due to how fast light travels or the speed of light, hence "light years"...

And, we are obviously not the center, so why does it appear that way, or that we are...?



There is plenty we can't see of know about, but what's your point, cause we do have what we do and can see and know about...?



I do realize that you know...



I'm not talking about the curvature of space, but the curvature we should see overall, or in the big picture of it, or the, or a, or any kind of dispersal pattern inherent with any kind of single origin point, big bang theory, that we should see some of the "curve" or circle or that, unless were just not seeing very much of it, or the big bang is not exactly true...

If it was smaller at one time then how does it not expand from that smaller area, and the Big Bang Theory says it has to expanding from some kind of single origin point, which we should be able to tell or see unless were just not seeing very much of it at all that is, which would make it very, very big, if the Big Bang is true...



Yes that is what the Big Bang claims, or at the very least it claims a single center point of origin, that burst forth or exploded, from that point, just like an explosion, that, unless were in the very, very beginnings of it, should not be accelerating or speeding up, but slowing down, but it's not, it's supposedly speeding up...



No, I theorize that is all moving at the same speed, if anything is really said to be moving at all, that is, and it's all at the same speed everywhere, which is the speed of light... I think it is the only speed, universally speaking... And the only reason we don't see that is because of where we are in it, and our vantage point or where we are looking at it from in it...

But if we were to look at it all from outside of that, I think we would see it all moving at the same speed equally everywhere (speed of light) if anything is said to really be moving at all that is, and it is not expanding, nor ever was expanding from any kind of single center point or point of origin, but we would see something other than that, if we were to be looking at it from outside of it, and not in it...



It "appears that way", one, outward from us which doesn't makes sense, and two, because of our vantage point or where we are looking at it all from "in it" or being in it...

It "appears that way", but that appearance is deceptive, and it is actually not how it appears to be, if you were to look at it all from some point "outside" of it...

Or how would you explain that wherever you were at in it, anywhere in it, or even as you would travel in or through it, it would always appear that you were the center, things further away from you moving faster away from you as the center, from wherever you were, or where you were at in it, ect...

But I propose that that appearance is not how it really is, but that appearance is kind of deceptive, and/or is lying to us, basically...

God Bless!

We (most of us) seem to think we know or think (mainly because of the Big Bang theory) that the universe is "spherical" in nature, starting maybe from a smaller sphere into a bigger one from some origin point far away from us, yet it appears that we are the center, ect, and would appear that way anywhere from within it, ect...

But why do we assume it is spherical in nature, when everything is apparently, based on the evidence we have and know and can see now, anyway, when everything is actually moving away from everything else (and I think at equal speeds), "outward from everything else" and seems to be pushing out equally from everything else, from everywhere in it, anyway, why do we assume it is all spherical in nature, when it may not be...?

It has no center really, and I would also question whether everything and anythings is really even moving and/or in motion or not, since it all seems to be all pretty much all "relative" at this point...

God Bless!

 

[Mountainmike]

No. M-theory was proposed by Ed Witten as a 'superset' of String Theory, which has fundamental particles represented by one-dimensional 'strings' in a (typically) ten dimensional universe. It isn't Hawking's, although he has said he thinks it's only viable candidate for a TOE (Theory Of Everything).

He also completely squashed the theory of everything and rightly so with the concept of "model dependent reality" - The TOE always was philosophical nonsense because the premise assumes that the underlying equations ARE the universe rather than just model it. It only took him 60 years to realise the blindingly obvious....

Superstrings also show another philosophical nonsense. The problem of observability making the equations insoluble - which demonstrates the obvious , it is just an observation model. You can postulate as many dimensions as you like - you cannot know how many really exist, since you look through a limited dimension projection porthole on "reality". So an infinite number of morphologies map on to the same limited dimension porthole. And you can only produce models that resolve for the number of dimensions that senses can actually detect. THe models are as much to do with the shape and nature of the window as they are to do with what is seen. Try modelling the world as a bat would, as Nietzhces? paper considers at philosophical level. "what is it like to be a bat?"...A bat would model the world with sound. Not sight. Which also therefore limits to the atmosphere.

As regards the OP though, and confining to the model of science, the presumption is that there is a continuous exchange of particle pairs bubbling into and out of existence randomly. So the number is not static....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He also completely squashed the theory of everything and rightly so with the concept of "model dependent reality" - The TOE always was philosophical nonsense because the premise assumes that the underlying equations ARE the universe rather than just model it. It only took him 60 years to realise the blindingly obvious....

Not really. MDR just says we can have different interpretations of what we observe - there's no reason why some model could not be a TOE - in fact Hawking referred to that in The Grand Design, saying, "We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question...".

You might also want to check out Max Tegmark's ideas on this - he argues, plausibly, that the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there is an independent physical external reality, implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH), that external physical reality is a mathematical structure, which in turn implies the Level IV multiverse - the ensemble of all mathematical structures. Philosophically, this is similar to David Lewis's 'Modal Realism' (all possible worlds are real) and Robert Nozick's self-justifying 'Principle of Fecundity' (which attempts [but fails] to justify itself as a possible world), which 'explain' why there is something rather than nothing.

Superstrings also show another philosophical nonsense. The problem of observability making the equations insoluble - which demonstrates the obvious , it is just an observation model. You can postulate as many dimensions as you like - you cannot know how many really exist, since you look through a limited dimension projection porthole on "reality". So an infinite number of morphologies map on to the same limited dimension porthole. And you can only produce models that resolve for the number of dimensions that senses can actually detect.

Not really. Superstring theory is a physical theory that effectively 'falls out' of attempts to make reasonable formulations of high energy quantum gravity - Sixty Symbols has a video where Dr. Tony Padilla explains how it arose and why it still remains popular:

For balance, here's PBS's video explaining why it may be wrong:

Number of dimensions is not really an issue - General Relativity is consistent in any number of dimensions. Superstring physics is consistent with an extra 6 dimensions, and there have been suggestions from M-theory that the strings themselves might be those compactified dimensions.

Try modelling the world as a bat would, as Nietzhces? paper considers at philosophical level. "what is it like to be a bat?"...A bat would model the world with sound. Not sight. Which also therefore limits to the atmosphere.

It was Thomas Nagel, and he was exploring the philosophy of subjective experience, not physical models of the world. Bats have good eyesight, their echolocation is for when light is very poor or absent. Why you think the limitation of an atmosphere is relevant escapes me - bats don't hunt in a vacuum, and if they tried, they'd have more to worry about than a lack of sound...

 

[FredVB]

But if this universes is billions of years old, no one is claiming they see the distant objects from 46.5 billion years ago.

Yes, they are and they are not just claiming it, but it is a fact, anything that we see from far away from us, however far away it is from us, that is how old or how long ago they say they are seeing it, which would need to accounted for...

I am not hearing any of those who say that. I didn't see all the thread, if you linked information showing that, can't you do so again? But I see that reputable scientists are in consensus that it goes back to about 13 800 million years ago, which is still a long time being claimed, but much less than what you say is true. And the farthest things seen are not seen from more than 13 800 million years ago, though the more distant that have been seen from our world are now much more than 13 800 million light years away ... from the expansion of space.

There is no center with this scenario. What is described is that we are at the center of all we see as far as we see. But light does not get to us from farther than that.

Yes it does, (light) but it is said to be that old or we are seeing it that old, due to how fast light travels or the speed of light, hence "light years".

And, we are obviously not the center, so why does it appear that way, or that we are...?

We are at the center of all the light that gets to us from other galaxies, along with objects like quasars, on all sides of where we are. So there is light that does not reach us from further on, because the expansion from that much further on is so great it keeps more distant light and anything with that speed from reaching us. That we don't see what more there is would mean we can't see any certainty that we are at the center, or that there is one.

So there is still any amount more of the universe that isn't known about.

There is plenty we can't see of know about, but what's your point, cause we do have what we do and can see and know about...?

That point that I showed was it, there is no center determined for where the universe expanded from.

and with curvature of space, the objects of the universe are equally on all sides, and the universe expanded from being much smaller, but without any center in space from which it all expands.

I'm not talking about the curvature of space, but the curvature we should see overall, or in the big picture of it, or the, or a, or any kind of dispersal pattern inherent with any kind of single origin point, big bang theory, that we should see some of the "curve" or circle or that, unless were just not seeing very much of it, or the big bang is not exactly true...

If it was smaller at one time then how does it not expand from that smaller area, and the Big Bang Theory says it has to expanding from some kind of single origin point, which we should be able to tell or see unless were just not seeing very much of it at all that is, which would make it very, very big, if the Big Bang is true...

If it is curved around like that, what can be seen is just a small area of that, the way we don't see curvature of the earth where we are, and some believe it is a flat earth. But with that all the universe is not within an area, but would spread everywhere in the expanding space, with the enclosed curve growing.

So it is not explained as an explosion as such.

Yes that is what the Big Bang claims, or at the very least it claims a single center point of origin, that burst forth or exploded, from that point, just like an explosion, that, unless were in the very, very beginnings of it, should not be accelerating or speeding up, but slowing down, but it's not, it's supposedly speeding up...

I am not talking about the universe coming from a nondimensional point. That would make no sense. Space expanding is not the same as an explosion.

So not everything moves away at the same speed.

No, I theorize that is all moving at the same speed, if anything is really said to be moving at all, that is, and it's all at the same speed everywhere, which is the speed of light... I think it is the only speed, universally speaking... And the only reason we don't see that is because of where we are in it, and our vantage point or where we are looking at it from in it...

But if we were to look at it all from outside of that, I think we would see it all moving at the same speed equally everywhere (speed of light) if anything is said to really be moving at all that is, and it is not expanding, nor ever was expanding from any kind of single center point or point of origin, but we would see something other than that, if we were to be looking at it from outside of it, and not in it...

With it being expansion of space, objects closer don't move away much from the expansion, objects very far away relative to the size of the seeable universe move away much more rapidly.

It "appears that way", one, outward from us which doesn't makes sense, and two, because of our vantage point or where we are looking at it all from "in it" or being in it...

It "appears that way", but that appearance is deceptive, and it is actually not how it appears to be, if you were to look at it all from some point "outside" of it...

Or how would you explain that wherever you were at in it, anywhere in it, or even as you would travel in or through it, it would always appear that you were the center, things further away from you moving faster away from you as the center, from wherever you were, or where you were at in it, ect...

But I propose that that appearance is not how it really is, but that appearance is kind of deceptive, and/or is lying to us, basically

There is no basis for concluding everything moves at the same speed. The Doppler shifts seen are why it is determined further objects in the universe move apart from us much faster. Why would it lie?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The question is, if everyone actually believes space is expanding, and hence the Planck length and Planck time are changing.... why does everyone believe they can calculate distance and age? Please don't use the pseudoscience of cosmological redshift.... Hubble's Law demands that redshift be directly correlated to recessional velocity. Yet as some of you have already stated, it is claimed to not be recessional velocity, but expansion causing the cosmological redshift. Therefore Hubble's Law can not be used to correlate distances, since the cosmological redshift is not caused from recessional velocity.....

Although the speed of light would remain the same, the amount of time to cross the distance of space would increase as the amount of space that must be crossed is increasing.... Therefore distance based upon the speed light travels would be irrelevant, since the time light takes to travel one light year would increase as the distance of one light year increased..... Light can not travel faster than c through this increasing space, so it must naturally take light more than one light year as the one light year distance increases to more than one light year.

So besides the pseudoscience of cosmological redshift, what claims to distance and time are valid????

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The question is, if everyone actually believes space is expanding, and hence the Planck length and Planck time are changing.... why does everyone believe they can calculate distance and age?

I'm sure I already explained that the Planck length is defined in terms of physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, & Planck constant) so would be unaffected even if your misinterpretation of the big bang was correct. The Planck time is derived from the speed of light and the Planck length, so would be equally unaffected. So even your interpretation of your misinterpretation is mistaken...

Please don't use the pseudoscience of cosmological redshift.... Hubble's Law demands that redshift be directly correlated to recessional velocity. Yet as some of you have already stated, it is claimed to not be recessional velocity, but expansion causing the cosmological redshift. Therefore Hubble's Law can not be used to correlate distances, since the cosmological redshift is not caused from recessional velocity.....

You're confused; recessional velocity is simply the rate at which astronomical objects move away from us for whatever reason (i.e. the expansion of space with a + or - contribution from proper motion that decreases to insignificance with distance), and the cosmological redshift can be used to estimate it. See Cosmological Redshift.

Although the speed of light would remain the same, the amount of time to cross the distance of space would increase as the amount of space that must be crossed is increasing.... Therefore distance based upon the speed light travels would be irrelevant, since the time light takes to travel one light year would increase as the distance of one light year increased..... Light can not travel faster than c through this increasing space, so it must naturally take light more than one light year as the one light year distance increases to more than one light year.

Light is red-shifted as it travels through expanding space, so the red-shift is typically used, as it is proportional to the distance. See How We Define Distance In An Expanding Universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sure I already explained that the Planck length is defined in terms of physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, & Planck constant) so would be unaffected even if your misinterpretation of the big bang was correct. The Planck time is derived from the speed of light and the Planck length, so would be equally unaffected. So even your interpretation of your misinterpretation is mistaken...

You had best go read up on Planck length as clearly you can't even explain it to yourself...... The Planck Length changes as the scale of space changes due to expansion......

You can't teach what you clearly do not understand yourself....

You're confused; recessional velocity is simply the rate at which astronomical objects move away from us for whatever reason (i.e. the expansion of space with a + or - contribution from proper motion that decreases to insignificance with distance), and the cosmological redshift can be used to estimate it. See Cosmological Redshift.

Light is red-shifted as it travels through expanding space, so the red-shift is typically used, as it is proportional to the distance. See How We Define Distance In An Expanding Universe.

No, no. You again fail to understand or refuse to in the attempted defense of your pseudoscience...

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

It is when technology advanced and falsified this concept as galaxies would be receding at fractions of c, that they switched to magical expanding nothing to save their theory from falsification.

Hubble's Law demands that it is a direct correlation between recessional velocity and the redshift. If on the other hand the redshift is caused from the expansion of magical nothing, and not the direct recessional velocity, then Hubble's Law can not be used.

You can't get around the fact that your pseudoscience has no direct support.

in fact, the man you keep trying to blame for expansion rejected that belief his entire life.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

""Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Which it does. It represents the interaction of light with charged particles in space. Which we have already discussed and to which I showed your views of neutrality were flawed with the Lyman Alpha Forest of emissions.

It is simply an increasing redshift as the density of particles light must travel through increases with distance....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

You all keep blaming a dead man for a theory he did not even accept as valid.....

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, if you could drop a camera or telescope, say at every one billion light years away, as you traveled toward the edge of it (the known universe) (46.5 billion light years away), each camera, each telescope, would see everything as moving outward and away from it, and faster speeds the further away, ect, including where you would eventually end up, (46.5 billion light years away)... Now, are all of these right...? Or are all of these wrong...? Or what...?

Now deduce or ponder what is really happening and going on, and get back to me OK...?

It is not what it appears to be...

Got any theories...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You had best go read up on Planck length as clearly you can't even explain it to yourself...... The Planck Length changes as the scale of space changes due to expansion......

You can't teach what you clearly do not understand yourself....

Perhaps you'd like to provide an authoritative citation, link, or reference for your claim, or even a coherent explanation of it?

Here's a couple of links that support my description: Planck Length, Planck Length.

It is when technology advanced and falsified this concept as galaxies would be receding at fractions of c, that they switched to magical expanding nothing to save their theory from falsification.

Hubble's Law demands that it is a direct correlation between recessional velocity and the redshift. If on the other hand the redshift is caused from the expansion of magical nothing, and not the direct recessional velocity, then Hubble's Law can not be used.

We've been over this before. Let's see an authoritative citation, link, or reference for your claim.

"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

It's not unusual for pioneering scientists to fail to accept new paradigms; Einstein was wrong about the nature of the quantum physics that he poineered.

You all keep blaming a dead man for a theory he did not even accept as valid.....

There's no blame involved. His name is used for physics he was associated with, that's all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, if you could drop a camera or telescope, say at every one billion light years away, as you traveled toward the edge of it (the known universe) (46.5 billion light years away), each camera, each telescope, would see everything as moving outward and away from it, and faster speeds the further away, ect, including where you would eventually end up, (46.5 billion light years away)... Now, are all of these right...? Or are all of these wrong...? Or what...?

Now deduce or ponder what is really happening and going on, and get back to me OK...?

It is not what it appears to be...

Got any theories...?

God Bless!

Every single one of them would see what "appears" to be recession, but in reality is not....

That is because no matter where you dropped the telescope, light from any direction would have to travel through increasing densities of charged particles, producing what they interpret to be an increasing expansion, when the reality is that it is nothing more than an increasing amount of charged particles light interacts with as distance increases.....

Which is why Edwin Hubble did not accept the very idea they try to attribute to him....

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

""Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

The "hitherto unrecognized principle of nature" is the interaction of light with charged particles as it traverses the gulfs of space.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Remember, according to their theory they did not predict those fully mature galaxies where they believed only younger ones should be..... They did not predict massive galaxy clusters, where only young galaxies just starting to form should be.

Their theory is seriously flawed and unable to predict what is observed. Useful only for lining the trash bin of history.....

 

[durangodawood]

82,305..... and counting

Ugh. I lost track and have to start over.

Sorry, people.

 

[WhoAmI_AGhost]

Can we/you number the amount of quantum particles in the entire universe...?

God can... And he knows all of them by name, or that is to say, he knows fully them all...

How many quarks or quantum particles are in an atom...?

How many atoms are their in a molecule...?

How many molecules are in a cell...?

How many cells are in a living thing...?

How many living things are in a world...?

How many worlds are in a galaxy...?

How many galaxies are in a universe...?

How many universes are there...?

And, is there anything beyond the universe...?

And 99.9% percent of it seems to be empty space, and the spaces in-between are vast on any level...

All of it based a mathematics and mathematical laws, which says "order", which says "design", which says there is a "designer"...

Can you, or how do we not, "see" that...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

He(Einstein's) told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look ? Certainly not like a man magnified."

 

[Neogaia777]

He(Einstein's) told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look ? Certainly not like a man magnified."

And there is not order or structure without a orderer or (intelligent) designer, I believe also...

Order is design and design necessitates a "designer"...

God Bless!

 

[FredVB]

Ok, if you could drop a camera or telescope, say at every one billion light years away, as you traveled toward the edge of it (the known universe) (46.5 billion light years away), each camera, each telescope, would see everything as moving outward and away from it, and faster speeds the further away, ect, including where you would eventually end up, (46.5 billion light years away)... Now, are all of these right...? Or are all of these wrong...? Or what...?

Now deduce or ponder what is really happening and going on, and get back to me OK...?

It is not what it appears to be...

Got any theories...?

In this highly imagined scenario, where you would travel across the universe, (maybe with a Plymouth Satellite) a-faster than the speed of light, so you travel with your structure you and it together consisting of tachyons, and "drop" telescopes, to record their images, which must cross the impossible barrier to be moving then at less than the speed of light. If that happened well enough, though we don't know how, the images to be seen from each of the sufficiently effective telescopes would find all the objects that could be seen in the distance across the universe showing such doppler shift indicating recession of those bodies, in the same way such is seen from the telescopes here.

Why would you end up at an end at some such distance? The edge of what could be seen is not known to be the edge of the universe. Seen from there the view could be more galaxies of stars that can't be seen from here, further out.