Re: Expanding Space
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/24/05
- Next message: TC: "Re: 7 problems with usenet aether theorists"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Why does a multiplication by gamma > 1 result in a contraction?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Next in thread: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Reply: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:04:18 GMT
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cvk5uv$cme$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:cvi9ak$ieu$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>>Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the
universe
> >
> > as
> >
> >>>that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
> >>>pre-existing space.
> >>
> >>Congratulations, you got that right.
> >
> >
> > No need to congratulate me. I merely repeating what the cosmologists are
> > saying.
>
> And I congratulate you for representing correctly what they said.
>
> In general, you are *badly* misrepresenting what scientists *actually*
> say.
So you think that what most scientists wrote are not what they mean to say?
Or are you saying that they are a bunch of idiots and only you have the
correct interpretations.
>
>
> > So why the expansion of the universe is not that motion of the galaxies
> > moving radially away from the point of BB in pre-existing space?
>
> Because then you would have big problems explaining things like the
> CMBR.
That's not a problem if space is stuff (or the E-Matrix). The CMBR is the
waves (energy) exist in the E-Strings of the E-Matrix.
>
>
> > Why are the
> > galaxies only have parculiar motions such as orbiting motion but not
> > expanding motions?
>
> 1) The word is "peculiar", not "parculiar".
> 2) Galaxies don't orbit in general. The stars *in* the galaxies
> are orbitting.
So what is your answer to my question?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
> >>>raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
> >>>expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble
> >>>with this anology is as follows:
> >>>1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.
> >>
> >>Define "physical".
> >
> >
> > A material medium that has measureable physical properties.
>
> Hint: if you want to define "physical", you shouldn't include "physical"
> in the definition. Read up "circularity".
OK...How is this definition:
Space is a material medium (stuff) that has measureable properties and that
it transmits light and that it can have stress within it.
>
> However, if we concentrate on the first part, "a material medium",
> then I agree: space is no material medium.
Hand waving is not an arguement.
>>space is empty space".
> >>So what?
> >
> >
> > So Einstein was wrong. Right?
>
> Today, we know that something like "empty space" can't really
> exist. Ever heard of quantum fluctuations?
So you admitted that Einstein was wrong.
Quantum fluctuation....is it just another term for the distortions in the
aether (the E-Matrix)?
>
>
>
> >>Hint: our knowledge has advanced quite a bit since Einstein.
> >
> >
> > Hint: his SR remains the same.
>
> Indeed. However, that space is empty is no part of SR.
So the new interpretation of SR is that space is not empty as Einstein
asserted. Then space must be the some form of aether like the E-Matrix. What
this mean is that you re-named the aether as space.:-)
>
>
> >>>2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define what
> >>>is "stuff"
> >>
> >>Liar.
> >
> >
> > So are you saying that you never said that space is stuff? If I can
proof
> > that you did would you agree that you were the liar??
>
> I explained this ad nauseaum. Either you are incredibly stupid, or
> willfully obtuse. Either way, it makes little sense to explain this
> yet again.
Hey idiot did you ever say that space is stuff????? I don't want you
explanation why you said it......just answer yes or no.
>
>
> >>>and at the same time they asserted that space is not nothingness as
> >>>asserted by SR.
> >>
> >>SR does not assert that space is nothingness.
> >
> >
> > SR assert that space is "empty".
>
> No. Where on earth did you get that idea from?
>From Einstein's writings.
>
>
> > So are you saying that empty is not the
> > same as nothingness?
>
> I am saying that empty *space* is not the same as nothingness.
So you are saying that empty space is some kind of aether because empty
space is not nothingness.
>
>
>
> > If so please define both terms for me.
>
> Nothingness: nothing there at all. Empty space: space is there.
You denied the term "empty space" earlier and now you are embracing it??
>
> For a definition of "space", see some old posts by me.
As I see it you re-named the aether as space. You really think that will
eliminate the existence of an aether by simply re-naming it?
>
>
> >>>When these physicists are cornered they just simply said
> >>>that space is space
> >>
> >>Liar. I provided clear definitions.
> >
> >
> > No you provided the dictionary definition.
>
> Which *were* clear.
Which were not clear because you insisted that space can have measureable
properties.
Ken Seto
- Next message: TC: "Re: 7 problems with usenet aether theorists"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Why does a multiplication by gamma > 1 result in a contraction?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Next in thread: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Reply: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
