I am telling everyone I can, Nasa can find out for themselves or read my papers when I eventually publish them. This thread is confirming my paper to be correct, the content of the paper is not even being questioned and silence is the validation of the truth.
It depends on your theory of space. Maybe you need to read up more on the subject. Even in a complete vacuum there is still something called "vacuum energy", a phenomena not very well understood right now. It's believed this vacuum energy is much greater than the amount of energy of any matter sitting in it. Most scientists in the field (and it's accepted as a pretty mainstream theory) believe space can be stretched and warped. If that were the case, obviously then it would not be true that "space just is".
I can prove with simplicity that space can not be displaced , Einsteins fabric of space is the fields within such as the HIgg's field. These fields that we can not observe because they are invisible, do warp and curve and all sorts . So space by simple proof just is... Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) is the fabric of space.
It depends what you mean by "space". What if mass could move at an infinite speed in the absence of space? (and by "space" I mean in the physical sense, not the purely geometric sense that you're envisioning) That would pretty much render the concept of space meaningless in that situation then. (geometric space)
Perhaps I need to explain something to you! In the beginning there was nothing, nothing is a geometrical space, nothing has dimensions. Nothing in the sense of 0 dimensions is a limitation in thinking. Space can not be absent, you cannot destroy or create space. Space just is.... When an object is in motion , the object passes through space without displacing that space, the space passes right through the moving object. Space is absolute nothing but absolute nothing has dimensions. X=0∞ Y=0∞ Z=0∞ t=0∞
Maybe not. The generally accepted theory of the Big Bang among cosmologists has space expanding at the same time as matter. But the concept could be rendered meaningless if matter were able to traverse that geometric construct instantaneously. Look, let me just give you a hypothetical example of severely warped space: a wormhole. Matter could traverse between two points at faster than light speed relative to your static geometric concept of space. Now of course there's no proof wormholes specifically exist, but most cosmologists who study this generally agree that space can be bent and warped to lesser extents. I'm sorry but you're really not the most informed on this topic. For example, even the earth's spin twists the surrounding space to some degree. Read about "frame dragging". https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic
Yes indeed, but an impossibility, the physics fail. p.s there is no evidence that suggests space itself is expanding like an inflating balloon. Red-shift is of bodies not of space. added- Look people it is really simple to visualise. Imagine an inflating balloon with specs of dust spread out over the surface, then pop the balloon leaving just the dust. Ok?
I'm not disagreeing with your statement here. Saying that space can expand or be stretched isn't the same thing as claiming that the overall space in the universe is actually expanding. I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Isn't that the example that's usually used for space expanding?
In the normal example they do not pop the balloon to remove the ''parlour trick'' of space expanding. There is no balloons surface only the ''specs of dust'' that are moving away from us.
We have absolutely zero evidence to even believe that the Universe is any different beyond the light border of the Observable Universe. From my experience those who believe that the Universe is different outside of our Observable Universe are religious folks who wish to portray the Earth as special somehow. The Observable Universe is nothing more than our own perspective of the Universe based on our position within it. Everything from Mars to some random planet in the Sombrero Galaxy has it's own Observable Universe. Even our own Moon's Observable Universe is different than ours slightly. It has nothing to do with special positioning it has to do with the speed of light and the age of the Universe and the rate of Universal Expansion. The ONLY way the Universe outside of our own Observable Universe would be "different" would be if the Earth held a special place in the Universe somehow. Through decades of study, experimentation, and observation we have found nothing whatsoever to conclude that the Earth is in some special place in the Universe. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that the rest of the Universe looks the same as our own part of it does. From my own experiences it's usually the more religious folks who tend to make the claim that the Universe outside of our own Observable Universe may be different. And those sentiments are based on religious beliefs and emotions and not actual scientific study. They basically just want the Earth to be "special" and the Universe being different from our own Observable Universe would mean the Earth is special somehow. It's basically, alright we figured out the Earth isn't the center of the Solar System, the Sun isn't the center of the Milky Way, the Sun isn't even special or unique it's about as common of a star as you can get, the Milky Way isn't even unique or abnormal it's just a normal spiral galaxy, etc. Alright well hell maybe the Universe itself is special from Earth's perspective somehow. Nope, sorry folks, like it or not our little blue planet is not special or unique and holds no special place in the Cosmos. It's just here, like everything else, and if you stood on a planet on the very edge of the Earth's Observable Universe then you'd see that the Universe doesn't look any different beyond our light horizon.
I guess it had to happen. We are engaged in religion bashing. I have simplified my belief in GOD and do not depend on any religion at all for my belief. If I checked deeply, it is probable some religion coincides with my views. I do not like to examine the finished cake to learn the ingredients. I like to start first with the ingredients and lead to the finished cake. This may help explain how I think on GOD. I start with the main ingredient. GOD ... so what is GOD. I struggled with the common concepts and finally reduced it down to AWESOME power. What does that mean? I mean a power so enormous it creates things like stars and the stuff of the universe. That takes truly awesome power. i dismissed the GOD of books on Earth. Don't bother me with any of the religious books. I am not declaring them to be wrong or lacking value. If you do checke Genesis though, it starts with GOD. GOD crafts the entire universe. Details flow from there. As primitive as they were at the time, I believe they hit a home run. It sounds silly to say it works, but it really works. So not to go far away, but to look at GOD as not awesome power does not work. I need not explain GOD at all since awesome power does not need an explanation. We see with our own eyes what awesome power looks like. It looks like humans on earth trying to figure some things out. The typical human is not asking why not be a democrat. They want the essentials of life.
I know telling you this is pointless, but you are wildly wildly wildly in over your head here. You need to do many many many years more studying before you are even remotely close to getting to the questions you are trying to answer let alone the answers. In the meantime however, this is the very first thing you need to study and understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
The Gravity Probe-B measured the geodetic effect, the amount that Earth warps the space and time in which it sits, and frame-dragging, or the extent that Earth's rotation churns spacetime around with it. https://www.popsci.com/technology/a...periment-proves-spacetime-vortex-around-earth Other experiments or observations have shown that massive objects can warp space. One of the first was the bending of starlight by the sun used to prove relativity. Gravitational lensing is another. I'm sure there are many more that's just off the top of my woefully ignorant head. If I'm knowingly ignorant just what does that say about someone without the slightest grasp of physics.
I am not surprised you have brought up Dunning and Kruger , but! Just no, as my paper is testament too. If you think I am in way over my head, then you should have no trouble showing my paper to be false? I have challenged the world many times on forums with this paper and the world is ''stumped''.
Warping space etc is no more than what I call ''god'' theory. It is vivid speculation of things we cannot see .
The superior ''power'' of the Universe is without doubt in my mind the first thing that ever existed, i.e space For to exist , there as to be a space to exist in. Even a God in the sense of some spiritual ''being'' would need a space to exist in... Without space nothing can exist for things would not have dimensions. So to me space equates to God and I even believe that religion was the first psuedo science who thought about space, even explaining it in their own words with things such us as God is all around us and within us, God being the first name given to space.
So anything we can not see directly is god theory such as the protons, neutrons, and electrons???????
Well I hate to say it but yes unless there is actions that give us justification to declare the possible existence. Like when we look at gravity, we call it gravity without knowing what is the cause of gravity, but by the actions of the process we can determine that some force exists that we call in a generalised manor gravity. But then of course we have the ''looney'' tunes people who take that one step further by subjectively entering the Gravitron
Well, first of all, nobody is stumped. You don't have paper or even a theory. You have a bunch of ramblings and technobabble. You don't really even have any claims other than saying concepts which are well established with evidence and theory don't make sense to you. And of course they don't make sense to you, you don't understand them, or concepts that build up to them. But, you not understanding things is not evidence for anything other than you don't understand things. When you say people are stumped, what you are really saying is that people are unable to teach you 20 years of physics in single posts. All that being said, all of this is crazy enough that you may just be trolling. I'm invoking the law that when you are called out, you have to admit that you are. You can do this by simply not responding.
