Arronax and Nasrudin are HUMAN

Debating what we were debating about is a futile gesture and so I'll be the first to drop it, Ferret.

You go on to say that the "universe is expanding faster than the matter can fill it". This seems, to me, another more complicated way of saying that "space" is "expanding". It also implies that matter is pouring in from some external source, filling the universe as water fills a pitcher. Yet the pitcher is growing faster than the water can fill it?? Please, enlighten me as to the outer boundaries of the universe and how they keep receding from us. In my concept of things it is MATTER which defines the expansion of the universe and not the SPACE between.

In my last post, I implied something that I thought you would pick up without my actually having to state it but now I will actually state it: the linear velocity granted celestial bodies does NOT originate with my ToEE. The expansion causes them to be attracted towards each other but it is the initial force of the Big Bang which has set things spinning. That some systems go in clockwise fashion is just evidence that somewhere else an equivalent mass is spinning in a counterclockwise fashion. In rotational kinematics, two bodies require an acceleration towards one another (provided by my ToEE) and orthogonal, opposed velocities (no acceleration) respective to their common center (provided by the Big Bang, which has flung things out from itself pell mell). None of the mass modulation that you describe is necessary to keep things going.

You say that the "only reason things expand is because they have overcome their attraction". This tells me that you do not understand what my ToEE is about. Things are ATTRACTED to one another BECAUSE of their EXPANSION. There is no barrier to OVERCOME. You are right to say that "everything would stay the same size and in the same place". It does, relatively. Everything is expanding at the same rate in my ToEE and so everything retains its relative size and density. The "attractive and expansive forces" within every singular body "balance", it's just that with respect to everything else said body is growing. Keep in mind the properties of perspective: things which are far away appear small but grow in size as they approach; two stationary celestial bodies will appear to move towards each other when -- under my ToEE -- they are actually remaining in place while becoming larger and thereby diminishing the space between them. You are right to say that the "force" of expansion is weak, it's 6.67 x 10^-23 kg*m/sec; g. Even though the expansion is exponential, EVERYTHING (well, not space) is doing it and therefore the derivative is constant.

Again, you point to the problem of cohesion. Again, I'd like to bring to your attention to how little we understand of the weak atomic force. I'd also like to bring to your attention a remark you made (fairly humorous) about "subatomic fish secreting quark-glue from their noses" and how you "couldn't care less".

You are right to say that it was mrnobodie who started this off and not retard. Their twisted avatars and twisted senses of humor are sometimes hard to distinguish without checking the record, which I did not do in the previous instance, I who am relatively new to the board. Still, when mrnobodie said "must come down" I took it in the literal sense and therefore a truly geosynchronous orbit -- although constantly falling -- isn't coming down.

Lord Deker, you are entirely welcome in this discussion. It hasn't gotten personal between Ferret and I, yet. As I mentioned, time is bent to a logarithmic curve which is scaled to the rate of exponential expansion and so the speed of light isn't necessarily exceeded.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There ya go! I didn't use it one more time; I used it five, but not one, just as you asked.

Ferret/CC, you are giving me a headache with all that science talk!

 

Nicely dropped I see. When precisely did you want to drop it again? :roll:

I have never mentioned an external matter infusion. We KNOW the universe is expanding through the many millions and millions of individual observations that have occurred (now tell me every single one of them is wrong. Go on.) and we believe this is due to the 'big bang'.

As such, we know that matter is moving outwards to fill the expanding universe. Since the universe is universal (hence it's name, obviously) there CAN BE no external infusion of matter. Thus, by logical deduction, if the amount of matter is the same, or getting less since it is constantly decaying into energy, and the universe is getting bigger, then the spaces between matter MUST be expanding faster than the matter itself. Therefore, expansion CAN'T be the force holding everything to together since expansion is actually driving things APART.

Your theory is nice, but fundamentally flawed since although it works in your theory, it doesn't actually take into account everything we know about the universe. It's like creating a working theory for a very small sample set and just ignoring everything else outside the box. It doesn't work in practice.

So what you're saying is that you're conveniently ignoring the immense energy potential of the big bang? You're saying that you're going to allow this energy to START your process, but that it's not allowed to have any affect on it whilst it's going? What then, did you want to happen to all this spare force? Put it in a box?

That is true enough. The theory of conservation of delta V.

Actually, no. I assume you're talking about two bodies rotating around each other? You need a constant force, not acceleration - otherwise the two bodies would collide. Actually, it doesn't matter what you're talking about. In rotational kinetics you need constant force - otherwise things speed up and fly apart do to the increase in energy potential of all matter involved.

In addition, if things are expanding, as I have so often stated, then it means that the forces that are normally balanced have been shifted and that the expansive force has overcome the attractive force. THINGS CANNOT AND WILL NOT EXPAND UNLESS THIS IS TRUE.

Therefore, this acctractive force that you claim is provided CANNOT be provided by your expansion theory because the very fact that you claim things are expanding means that the attractive force has been OVERCOME!!

Geez. Learn basic principles of physical motion before you make up something.

In order to get things orbiting each other you need intermass attractions in order to provide the orbital momentum. Sure, the initial lateral velocity can be provided by the big bang energy, but without the attractive forces (which CANNOT be provided through expansion) things wouldn't orbit.

I also don't know what you mean by 'opposed' velocities. Everything will be travelling universally outwards from a single centre point. Thus everything will be travelling radially with opposing forces being seperated by the universal centre point - providing no means for interaction.

The point about the velocity modulation was reinforced by Lord Deker's post. He worded it slightly better than I did. If something is to produce an apparent circular orbit, then the RELATIVE velocities of the two bodies needs to be changing in a constant and oscillatory fashion. However, there is absolutely no force that can produce such changes in delta V between two objects that give the effect of orbiting, since you can slow something down (which would tear the celestial body apart at the same time, with respect to the speed of these changes) but there is no reason for the bodies to speed up again. In addition, if you look at an orbit in a planar fashion, you see that the object changes sides - there is NO lateral force in operation that would cause this affect.

The only thing to cause this affect is a massive matter attraction, of the like which CANNOT be explained through expansion, due to the very nature of expansion.

For goodness sake!! Learn elementary physics. I have explained many times that things CANNOT expand unless the attraction is nullified or overcome.

Look. There are normally two forces at work in any matter. Expansion and contraction. Normally these two forces are in check - they balance each other out. Otherwise if the contraction was greater than the expansion the object would get smaller and if the expansion was greater than the attraction then the object would get bigger. Implosion or explosion occurs when one or the other force is nullified or overcome to such an extent that it can be assumed it has a negligable affect.

THUS, if something is expanding, it's attractive force CANNOT be used to hold things together, since it has been overcome. You can't attract BECAUSE something is expanding, or it wouldn't be expanding in the first place.

But it wouldn't be. The density would be decreasing. Just because things would appear relative doesn't change the fact. If things are expanding then by the very definition you are achieving a higher percentage of 'null' space within the material and thus the density of matter is decreasing. Or do you now want to create 'new' matter from nothing in order to fill the gaps in your theory?

If the density is decreasing then there will be a point where the matter becomes so low in density that is will simply lose cohesion. If all matter was expanding since the big bang then that point would have occured more than a couple of billion years ago.

Then they're not in balance. QED.

This can be disproved through simple observation. We can prove, through the Bohr shift effect, that things are indeed moving towards or away from us. In addition, it's actually quite easy to determine the relative size of objects in space (within a reasonable distance) and we do this all the time with objects within our arm of the Milky Way (admittedly, not very far in celestial terms, but far enough).

Your explanation also does not explain why almost all celestial bodies are moving towards each other faster than then their apparent size would indicate. If something is expanding then it could only move as fast as it's expansion. How then, do tiny asteroids move faster than planets? By your theory this would not be possible.

This makes no sense. Just how have you 'measured' the force of expansion? If indeed everything was expanding relatively the same and thus the observed force of expansion was constant, you couldn't actually measure the force of expansion, or indeed, even know it existed because to us it wouldn't be a force of expansion.

And? We know it can't be getting stronger and stronger though. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe. If these forces were to be getting stronger in order to hold the matter together as it expanded then the amount of matter would actually be decreasing as it was converted to energy to hold it together. Thus, either you end up turning all matter into energy just to actually stay together, or you'd reach an equilibrium where the matter was no longer expanding. Either way your theory doesn't hold water even though we don't know much about these forces.

Oh, and although we don't know WHAT these forces are or why they are caused, we DO know they are constant because we can measure them. Another failing in your argument against loss of cohesion.

Well, you've got my attention, now I want to know why you wanted my attention.

Of course.

Considering that many of your posts to date have infact included the person who posted and the time and date of their posts, I find that hard to believe. Using your 'newness' is no excuse for laziness because you've shown otherwise on too many occaisions now that you are normally fastidious in your quoting.

That's fair enough. But then, why did you not disprove it litterally as you just did (and save all this argument) when you instead decided that what he said needed an entirely new idea on the disproof of the phenomenon of gravity?

It's no good taking it in one sense and then basing your argument in another. How the hell are we supposed to know that you 'took it litterally' when everything you have said up until this point has been otherwise?! :roll:

But you actually stated in one of your previous posts that time and space WERE NOT curved. How then, do you change your mind simply because it fits your needs at this point in time? Have you decided to disprove your own theory in favour of another one because you knew it to be wrong but can't admit to it?

In addition to this, the speed of light would never change just because matter is expanding. Light is energy and energy does not expand or it will lose intensity. If the speed of light were to change because of matter expanding then everything would be dark because of the loss of intensity.

I'd also like to know just HOW energy is actually travelling faster, and time is actually moving more quickly, just because matter is expanding? Sure, our RELATIVE timeframe would change because of our increase in size, but an increase in size would actually SLOW our perception of time, not speed it up.

Also, as Lord Deker pointed out, if everything was bigger and the spaces between object so much more vast, then even if our RELATIVE time were sped up (even though it's slowed down according to your theory) then the ACTUAL time for the light to travel would still not change. Thus it would still take longer for it to travel to us.


Lord Deker, it's nice to have you join us. It's not personal. Were just having a match of wits. I like some of your comments, but I have to say I disagree with some of them.

There comes a point where we have to consider something as truth. Otherwise nothing we actually sense or deduce can be called Truth. There is a point beyond which reasonable doubt can be ignored.

For example, do we live on the planet Earth? Billions of people through all of human history would say yes, and there are very few people who would claim otherwise. As such, the chance of us NOT being on Earth is so small that it can be beyond reasonable doubt and called truth.

If we don't have truth then our entire basis for existance is challenged. If nothing can be called truth then EVERYTHING is false and our existance crumbles around us.

Are we human? Do we exist? These things have to be truth because so many billions of people know it to be so.

There are still plenty of things that we are not sure about or only have theories on, but when something can be repeated an indefinite number of times and there has never been any other result then it can be taken as truth.

I don't believe in god. Truth CANNOT change just because of one's beliefs or it is not truth. This means that God cannot and does not dictate truth. He can show truth to some people, who believe in him, but he is not the sole distributor of the knowledge of truth.

Besides, we can't prove or disprove the existance of God. It's all just a matter of faith. He is infact, just another theory that some people choose to believe in; Thus God cannot call something truth if he infact is not known to be truth himself.

 

Really nice! Even better than what my physic explained.

So that if attraction is achieved by expansion, everything will be floating - respectively, and actually flying out. Gravity will not exist as the large size of the earth and small size of us will bring no difference RELATIVELY, and we will have the same attraction on every matter. That, actually, make everything float. You are not flaoting, right?

So Cobra, if you want anyone to accept your theory, you better explain all the case that doesn't match the real world stated before.

That what makes me truely believe a theory is faith. Yes, truth never change, but misconception can happen on a mass population. I have faith because I trust the god, and science give good faith becuase it is based on observation, of that what people see means truth to most people. but I am just curious : how can people believe in a theory, without the test of observation to gain faith? That is what I want to point out.

For me, I can believe what I do not see and have doubt on what I see because of faith in God. But as you guys do not believe in god, what makes you believe what you can't see? The masses? I don't believe them, especially because I live in Hong Kong.[/quote]

 

Theories only become fact once they are proven. Thus you are correct in thinking that all theories are taken on faith, even if they are not a faith in themselves. Theories are just a working explanation of the truth we know - the facts, but they are still taken on faith. Once we no longer need faith in the theory because we know it to be true, then it is no longer a theory, but fact.

Scientists put the same faith in our theories as you do in God. We cannot always prove our theories with our current knowledge and capabilities, just as you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God - yet you still put your faith in God. It is the same with theories.

From our understanding of how things work and the backing of what we know to be truth, it is what we believe to be the best explanation into whatever phenomenon we are investigating.

Like I said above, faith is the same for every person. Some people put their faith in religion and God (or Gods, depending on the religion) just as you have done. Some people put their faith in science, just like I have done and some people put their faith in both or nothing.

Everything that is not truth is taken on faith to some extent or other. Only once we know things are truth and fact do we no longer need to put our faith in it.

That is one aspect where science 'triumphs' over religion (does NOT mean in any respect that science is better than religion, so please don't take offence) because religion requires complete faith in you deity and some people may have a crisis of faith and thus are no longer capable of believing in their deity.

However, even if you lose faith in some of the scientific theories, scientists always have the backing of what we know to be fact. Indeed, scientists often have crisis of faith with scientific theories - if we didn't, then theories would never change or be refined or disproven and new ones created and we wouldn't know what to believe in any more.

However, it should be noted that science is built upon observation and reasoning and almost nothing, that is accepted within the majority of the scientific community, has it's basis in anything but that which can directly perceive.

 

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!! did i start all this?. Fuck, i think i'll just stick to cringe humour from now on...... oh, some-one might want to try and get in touch with Sherrif, i think Ferret has stolen his wise ass.

 

damn... i actually read all of what was written. great argument. one of the best i've read in a while on here... what was this topic about again :-?

 

Honestly, Ferret, a large part of your argument strategy seems to consist of expanding on the obvious and anticipating arguments that I don't make half the time, providing for EXTREMELY long posts which lack focus and daunt the reader by their sheer size. Please, consolidate your thoughts before writing in order to avoid the repetition of your arguments and please, please, please do NOT argue against something that you assume I have said or am going to say. I realize that you frequently quote me, but sometimes those quotes are removed from their context by the brevity you impose upon them (red journalism comes to mind). I ask you to take what I say holistically and then make a holistic response. Were I to use your method this would primarily be a contest of who could write the longest post.

The size of the universe is DEFINED by the presence of matter because there is, literally, nothing else to define size by (we seem to agree on this). Although matter may be "deteriorating into energy", energy is "deteriorating" into matter. Breeder reactors prove this by example and Einstein's theory of relativity shows the two to be controvertible. So, the universe maintains an equilibrium. Pretty much all of the Big Bang's energy was converted from kinetic to potential in the first 10^-27 second of the universe's birth, and while your plan to box up its energy sounds like a wonderful marketing scam I doubt that it has real world potential (besides the potential energy).

You say that orbiting objects require a "constant force" to remain in place. You even seem to imply that this "constant force" has to be applied orthogonally to the axis of rotation or the objects in question would "fly apart" or even perhaps crash into each other. I ask you to look at all of the satellites we have put into geosynchronous orbit and the moon and the other planets in our solar system and all of the other solar systems in our galaxy. Do you see an orthogonal force being applied to keep them locked in their rounds?? Small rocket boosters, perhaps, so that the entire universe isn't thrown into chaos?? Once escape velocity has been achieved -- just so -- no more energy is required to keep things revolving; the "force" of attraction does this. And this is where my ToEE comes in.

The concept that I can't seem to convey to you is that with the ToEE the expansion IS THE GENERATOR of the attractive "force". I don't know how to word it any more simply than that. Certainly, there are magnetic forces in play. Certainly, there are kinematics at work. But these are all keyed to the exponential expansion in an entirely relative system. You say that expansion cannot occur without overcoming attraction and I say that the two are the same under the ToEE; there is no need for one to overcome the other. With regard to the equilibrium, it is moving upwards at an exponential rate along with the rate of explosion of everything. It is because it is all relative that we derive constants from it. Are you familiar with calculus?? Do you know that when you take a derivative of a function that it falls into a lower order of magnitude, that it becomes a constant in relation to its previous magnitude?? Everything is undergoing the same exponential expansion and so we are able to derive constants from it. The same applies here with the constant g, which I was hoping you would be familiar with being a Head of Science and all -- it's even metric for Pete's sake.

My comparison to the properties of perspective was an analogy. Frankly, it's one of the best I can come up with to describe the "force" of attraction. Anyway, applying the Bohr shift effect in this instance is completely useless -- any reference points you choose will have to expand at the same rate as everything else and so objects won't merely APPEAR to move closer to one another, they WILL.

I don't know what you are trying to get at with your statement that matter has to turn into energy in order to hold itself together but then it's all energy and so it doesn't have to hold itself together any more. You might as well say that the planets are burning petrol in order to maintain their orbits. Invisible, microscopic rocket boosters, anyone??

I think Deker brought up a valid point when he said that the speed of light might be affected. If distances are constantly becoming "greater" under the ToEE (which they aren't, but keep reading), then the time required to travel those distances would also "increase". That's why I said that time was scaled to the expansion. I never said that space was scaled in the same way, Ferret. Really, how can one measure something that isn't there in the first place unless one has valid reference points?? The fact is, light is mostly energy but there IS an almost negligible presence of matter in each photon. The observations that have been made in this field concern the use of "gravity" in bending light. There is also an experiment where a thin slit is cut into a dark box and while the light is expected to cast a thin line of light through the shadow it instead creates a wedge of light. Theoritically, light as energy would have perfect diffusion and reflection when the reality shows this to be false. It is the mass that photons possess which makes such experiments possible. Under the ToEE, the mass inherent in photons will also expand along with the rest of the universe and therefore the relative distances involved never change.

This brings up an interesting question that has been posed before: if you were in a train that was moving at the speed of light and you walked forward several cars, wouldn't you be traveling faster than the speed of light in relation to the space outside the train?? Perhaps the same goes on with dividing particles of photonic mass, but I am inclined to think that they always divide sideways instead of one taking the lead. This would be a convenient explanation as to why light creates a wedge in the above experiment.

Deker, when did I say I was an atheist?? I am not. I am one of the Faithful.

 

I'm sorry. You just state so much cack that it needs explaining and counterstating. If you based your own argument on reasonable and logical debate then this wouldn't have to be so.

I also wouldn't have to keep restating the obvious if you would actually pay attention. You keep ignoring basic fundamentals of physics and that is why your arguments are flawed and I have to keep pointing them out to you.

Tell you what, whilst we're at it, why not ignore the basic principle of conservation of energy? Oh, wait, you've done that already. My mistake.

I'm not. Are you READING my posts? I'm only replying to things that you say. I'm reading your words, and replying to what you have written. If you're not writing things down so that they mean what you want them to mean then please don't blame me for that.

It's a bit hard when you contradict yourself within the same post and don't exactly stay on te same topic yourself. I HAVE to split your posts up because you try so many different angles in each post that it just doesn't make sense.

Also, please point to any bit where I have quoted you out of contect. Most, if not all of the things I have quoted are simple statements from you that either cannot be taken out of context, or just do not make sense in ANY context.

Actually, that's wrong.

That's wrong as well. Why do you think we need to use reactors? It's true that matter and energy is interchangable, but matter decays into energy, energy tends towards thermal energy, and thermal energy tends to zero. Infact, theoretically, the exact amount of total energy in the universe adds up to zero.

We need to use reactors because the process of converting energy back into matter takes an ENORMOUS injection of external energy into the system. Even then, you'll notice, the matter created in the breeder reactor decays very rapidly into something else because the matter created through energy crystallisation is unstable.

It wasn't a plan of mine. It was a joke remark in reply to one of your exclusions of the basic principles of energy conservation. Which, I might add, you have failed to answer and have just accused me of creating a null scheme instead. Try to pay more attention please.

You seem to have ignored the word 'initial' I threw in there somewhere. Besides whist, you stated youself that things were accelerating, where they are not so it's not good pointing out such things yourself when you don't even heed your own advice.

The whole point of this debate is that we are discussing this 'attractive' force that holds things in orbits. You have changed your theory on a number of occaisions during this debate. First you say that orbits are not orbits and that is IS no force between them, and that orbits are just an effect of everything expanding; then you change it to a similar thing, but there IS a force between the orbiting objects; and now you've changed your theory so that you've completely ignored your expansion theory and stated that the expansion merely provided the attraction neccessary for objects to obtain orbit.

At least stick with the same theory. It's very frustrating trying to debate something when the opposition's side keeps changing.

And I'll state again, that due to fundamental laws of physics, you CANNOT have an attraction if things are expanding. WHY WILL YOU NOT LISTEN? The force that provides the attraction between orbiting objects CANNOT be provided by the fact that everything is expanding. If this was so then THERE WOULD BE no attraction!

Oh, and sod it. If everything is expanding, how the bloody hell do you explain Black holes? At very best they are points that ARE NOT expanding, thus that disproves your theory anyway.

And the concept that I can't seem to convey to you is that this is impossible under probably one of the most fundamental laws of physics. You CANNOT have a viable attractive force generated by something that is expanding because it wouldn't be expanding if the attractive force hadn't been overcome.

So you've basically taken it upon yourself to rewrite the laws of physics at the most fundamental level, with what? A basic elementary school understanding of 'how things work'? Half of the underlying concepts you have stated are wrong because you've learned the oversimplified version of things. Hell, I don't understand all of this stuff fully myself, and I've spent many, many hours discussing physics at anywhere up to PHD level at university.

You cannot change the laws of physics on a whim just to make your own theory work. From now on, I propose the theory that everything is made of cheese. To do this, I'm going to change the laws of physics so that matter decays into energy and energy decays into cheese. There! See! My theory is PROVED!!

Can you see just how flawed your arguments are now? You CANNOT base an argument on something that you've changed, that you don't even fully understand in the first place. Rewriting the basic laws of physics to win an argument is just insane. If you mentioned this theory to any scientific body in the world, in the same fashion as you have done here, you would be laughed out the building and physicists would be making fun of your for years to come.

I understand what you're trying to say. I agree with you. However, all I'm trying to point out is that if everything is expanding uniformly relative, then we would have absolutely no comprehension of such a thing occuring, let alone any way of measuring it, because to us and our perception and any form of measuring device we could conceivably construct, nothing would be changing at all. Infact, it would appear to be a null entity. Things would happen that just aren't possible. We know that the amount of energy in the universe is constant, because we can measure the stuff and we know that energy is used in orbits and all processes in our solar system at least. However, if the force of attraction was provided because everything was uniformly expanding, it would appear to us that things were held together by nothing - we couldn't detect it at all, in any way.

However, the very presence of things like weak atomic forces, that we can show are the forces that hold atoms together, we can prove that energy in some form is responsible for holding atoms and all matter together. Thus it CANNOT be some attractive force produced by an effect that we can fundamentally NOT be aware of.

Actually, you stated that space doesn't expand and that only matter does and that matter defines the universe (which is wrong, since it's ENERGY that defines the universe. Matter only makes up a minor percentage of the universe). As such, if matter was expanding, but space was not, then although the universe would be getting larger, EVERYTHING would be getting closer. We know this to be false.

In addition, we don't NEED a reference point other than ourselves. As such, even if we are expanding, we can determine that the relative size remains the same (as would happen if your theory WERE true) but that objects are moving faster than their diameter would allow if it were due to expansion only in both a positive and negative respect to our own position. In addition, since smaller objects can move faster than large ones, this implies that expansion cannot be the cause.

You weren't paying attention I see. If there is a force that hold matter together then it has to come from somewhere. Even if it DOES come from your expansion theory. If things ARE expanding, then the force needed to hold matter together would become more than exponetially greater compared to the distance between the basic matter components. This means that more energy is needed to hold the matter together.

You state that the expansion is occuring uniformly. This means that it cannot be generating the energy needed to maintain cohesion. Even if the expansion was happening exponentially, the forces would increase exponentially faster than the expansion no matter what, and so the expansion STILL cannot be generating this energy.

Energy cannot just appear in the universe, it has to come from somewhere. This means the energy can only come from one source; the matter itself. This means that any expanding matter is actually being converted into energy at an exponential rate in order to maintain cohesion and actually remain as matter. This means that any expanding matter would not only become less dense, but would actually be contracting as it tends to energy.

Thus, things cannot actually be expanding anyway.

Just because something takes longer doesn't mean that time is scaled. If you drive 400 miles to work instead of 200 miles, does that mean that although you were travelling at the same speed you've actually aged slower? Thing logically for goodness sake. This IS after all, a scientific debate!

Just because light takes longer to reach a destination doesn't mean it's speed has changed and time is altered.

Actually there isn't. Light is energy. It may BEHAVE like matter on occaision, but then I guess you've never heard of the wave-particle duality of light. Do you even know what a photon IS? Ever heard of 'wave packet'?

No it's not. Infact, light not only doesn't create a wedge of light, it creates interference patterns due to wavefront collapse and intervention (I think this is a part of superstring theory, so read that for more info) and this is a fundamental property of energy, not matter. You're speaking in simplified theory terms again.

Light does not have matter in it. Are you also saying that sound is matter? Sound reacts in EXACTLY the same way as light. Are you saying that when we speak we are actually assaulting each other with solid lumps of matter?

Nice, but won't work because there IS no matter in each photon.

No, because you couldn't walk forward in the train. At the speed of light all matter stops decaying due to entropy (if, that is, it is lucky enough not to decay into energy itself, which is highly probably). This means that no changes occur in matter at all, thus you couldn't walk. You, the train, and everything else in it would all be travelling at a uniform speed.

There is no mass in a photon and why would they divide anyway? If there WAS a mass in ligt, then each photon would ust go a seperate way. You wouldn't have each photon dividing because in doing so it would decay and no longer be light in the first place.

And light doesn't create a wedge.

He was referring to me.

 

SEE the importence of quoting, hm?

Still, you have not answer my question. So, let's do it like this :

For me and my computer, and the air in between :

1.All matter under TOEE expand, right? So me and the computer and the air in between expand, expotentially.
2.I do not find me being pushed to the computer.

By 1. and 2. , under TOEE, should there be more "space" holding me, the computer and air to let us expand while I do not touch the computer? Whatever, -->3

3.The distance between me and the computer increase, right?
4.Light speed do not change, right?

By 3. and 4. , -->5

5.It takes more time for light to reach my eyes, right?
6. I don't see my finger or the :lol: :-o move slower.

So, can you, Chalupa Cobra, tell me is there any error for me to deduce 5. ? If not, how can 5 and 6 happen together.

Firstly, you said space do increase, hence distance do increase. Or I will see my head heading towards the screen, as both me and the screen enlarge!

In term of distance, I see under ToEE everything is expanding so we see no different on distance, but the real distance do change, right? And more space is holding the same matter as the "thing" (I can't say what it is in ToEE) in matter continue to divid. Expanded matter take up more space, although we can't realize in ToEE, right? So space do also expand in some ways, and real distance increase in ToEE, right?

You wrote "time is scaled to the expansion", so that you are saying that everything do slow down? right? But we see by light, right? Do our "mind" being slow down also. SAY who CAST CONGEAL TIME on me or TEMPUS FUGIT on the world! I should kill that MAGE before learning ToEE!

Ok, so the small things do divid to smaller things and cast expansion? So what after the division? Do the smaller things move out and divid again? If they don't move out and stay in the position the matter can not be said expanding, right? So the smaller things do move out a bit before further division, right? So do the things packed in an ordered way? Under ToEE there is not interal attractive force, only expansion driven attraction, right? If that is, the things inside are not packed, have a hard core and soft outside. So why don't my fingers get inside the keyboard?

Cobra, if you don't address situation posted by Ferret and me, I may get more fancy ideas when thinking on ToEE, and I will stole this idea and make a game base on the ToEE system, which have many funny things occur!

Lastly, let me do some fun......

(Sign) :/

Next time, anyone posting should make up a list of theory stated, so we can disscuss on those theory till the end, not doing mutiple disscuss on many different theory. I feel dazed, by now.[/quote]

 

You know, I don't think we can ever win this one LD. I think that Chalupa changed his argument right around the time he started referring to ToEE. I reckon he's now talking about the Temple of Elemental Evil fantasy game word and not the real life physics that we thought we were. Thus it's fine that he changes the laws of physics at a whim becuase we're all discussing a fantasy world where reality can be what you want it.

 

You mean like the Matrix? :/

 

Alright, I'm going to restate my Theory of Exponential Expansion starting very simply instead of blurting the whole thing out in a couple of sentences and then having to hammer out all of the details along multiple lines of inquiry at once. I will show you all that I HAVE NOT changed my original stance; I believe it is the degeneration this discussion has undergone in hammering out all of the details that has created that impression.

To begin, I will say that the attractive "force" (i.e. g=6.67 X 10^-23 kg*m/sec^2 [yes, I neglected to place the "^2" earlier and yet it was implied in my words][I put the word "force" in quotes because it acts as such a thing when it is not; the "force" exerted is really a matter of perspective as in when a moving object collides with an object that is stationary: to the moving object, the stationary object appears to approach the moving object]) -- the cause of which seems to elude our understanding -- can be explained with my ToEE. Under my ToEE, all of matter is undergoing an exponential expansion and it is the effect of this expansion which gives the impression of attraction.

The ToEE states that matter is dividing at the smallest possible level into ever smaller levels of matter at an exponential rate. In order for these divisions to occur, interstices are introduced between the bits of each successively smaller level of matter (division CANNOT occur without the introduction of a space). It is the introduction of these interstices which causes matter to expand, but it is because ALL MATTER is expanding at the same rate that nothing actually APPEARS to be expanding. This disintegration of matter might be likened to the decrystallization of evergy, although matter is never ACTUALLY reduced to its component parts as it is dividing on ever smaller levels.

Instead of an apparent expansion, objects suspended in perfect vacuum APPEAR to exert a "force" of attraction on one another equal to g. If one's point of observation were unaffected by the ToEE then the two objects would grow within the point of view at an exponential rate (starting very, very slowly unless the mass to size ratio is very large indeed) until colliding and then they would continue to expand outwards from their new, common center. As it is, a viewpoint affected by the ToEE retreats from the two objects to accomodate the rate of expansion (which is very, very small; look at the magnitude of g) and the objects retain their original size.

Now, to my mind, there have been but a handful of arguments advanced against my theory for all the talking that has been done: the barriers of cohesion, alterations in the speed or nature of light, the Bohr shift effect, the effect of the ToEE on rotational kinematics, and, most recently, black holes. Most of the content of several of the posts has been either rhetoric, slander, agreeing that we are in agreement, and rehashing what has already been said. Sadly, some of it has begun to spill over into other threads. Please, if I have missed any arguments inform me in a concise and direct manner.

Black holes are an interesting area of physics in that normal conventions have this tendency to break down beyond the event horizon. I'll not go there, and I'm confident that you won't either. I WILL say that the event horizons of all black holes are in a state of expansion along with the rest of the matter in the universe, though.

The ToEE as applied to rotational kinematics is simple. One simply replaces the tensile "force" exerted between two celestial bodies with the ToEE's "force" of attraction which just so happens to be the same constant which man has always observed in these types of cases, namely: g.

I can see no disagreement between the ToEE and the Bohr shift effect. If you do, please point it out to me in the most explicit but concise format that you are able.

As concerns light, whether it contains an almost negligible percentage of mass or whether it does not DOESN'T seem to have a bearing on this argument. If partially matter, then it maintains its relativistic properties by expanding along with the rest of the universe's matter. If not -- and it can be likened to the propagation of sound -- then the matter which originates it determines its scale. I have to admit that I lean towards light possessing mass -- after all, it DOES alter its trajectory in passing large "gravitational" bodies and especially black holes.

Finally, the barriers of cohesion that must be overcome for the ToEE to be valid (precluding any further arguments or arguments that I have neglected to mention). It has been said that an exponentially increasing amount of energy must be invested in order that matter should hold itself together. I say that matter ISN'T holding itself together and that if it does indeed need "some" energy in order to avoid complete dissolution perhaps it derives this energy from the decrystallization of matter (on an exponentially increasing scale, mind you) which I have spoken of above. Who can say?? I would press whomever agrees with the argument that matter would have difficulty cohering to offer me an explanation for why it is that the "force" of gravity doesn't seem to consume any sort of energy.

Lord Deker, I believe that I have answered your questions indirectly with the statements I have made but I will go further and answer you directly. Yes, under the ToEE you are pushed towards your computer; you are pushed away from the computer by the air in between yourself and the computer. The earth is pushing you away from the ground and the air above you is pushing you towards the ground. Alpha Centauri exerts its influence upon you and you are inexorably drawn towards it but the stars in the other half of the sky are exerting their influences, too, and you are drawn towards them. Under the ToEE, your mass to space ratio has decreased although so have the ratios of everything surrounding you and you don't actually notice it. Although the distance between yourself and the computer has increased light has not relinquished its physical properties -- they are scaled to the environment. You don't notice your finger or those smileys moving slower because light moves very, very, very fast.

 

Several things in response to these statements:

I will state it just one more time before giving up trying to reason with you, you are forgetting or ignoring one of the most fundamental laws of the universe, that has been shown to exist trillions of times, over hundreds of years, by billions of people. If something is expanding, then the attractive force does not come into play to a workable extent. It's still there, but will have no effect until the energy used to expand the matter has disappated enough for the expansion to stop. If the attraction can no longer hold the matter itself in equilibrium then it cannot have any affect on other matter.

This brings me to my second point. Where is the energy coming from to fuel this expansion? Things only expand if there is an external input of energy into a system; otherwise the forces remain in equilibruim and expansion doesn't take place. Energy cannot just appear from nowhere and thus if all matter is expanding then there is an inconceivably immense amount of energy being used from somewhere to fuel it. If you can explain to me where this energy is coming from then I might just even start to take your theory seriously.

The only place this energy could possibly come from is from the breakdown of the matter itself. Thus this has several effects: the matter will be decreasing, the matter thus cannot be dividing indefinitely, the matter will be becoming so low in density that cohesion would be impossible, and that by now there would BE no matter left in the universe.

These things all need addressing before your theory even starts to make any form of rational sense.

In expansion of this, where is the extra matter coming from for division? You said that matter is continuously dividing on an immensly small scale. However, if the matter is decreasing in order to fuel expansion, there cannot be enough matter to continously divide.

Also, I never said that matter disintegrates into nothing. I just said it would lose cohesion. It would simply no longer be possible for there to be enough energy in the universe for the matter to have more effect of any other peice of matter. Everything would become a disorganised soup of infinitely small particles. Under the laws of conservation of energy, plus what millions of scientists have shown to be true for EVERY time it's done, which is millions of times, then that point in time should have already occured by now.

The only way forward from there is the decay of the remaining matter into energy and the decay of that energy into waveform.

And once again you missed off the one major point I have been making in almost all of my posts in this thread. *sigh*

I'll give you that one. It's true that the laws of physics break down past the event horizon. I should also point out though that the event hirozon is expanding anyway as more matter is collected into the black hole.

Then please REREAD my previous posts, where I have already pointed out anomolies between the relative size, speed and expansion of celestial bodies and how such a thing cannot happen, even under your own theory. It's there. You've just ignoreed it. Again.

Why would it need mass in order to be deflected? Everything is affected by such quantum singularities; hence they're called quantum singularities. They break down the laws of physics. I think I read somewhere it's to do with universal densities, but since I have no idea what that is about I can't and won't argue on that basis.

Gravity affects everything, not just matter. It's just that matter is essentially far more tangible than energy, as well as exerting it's own gravity. This simply means it's affect more easily. If energy couldn't be affected or tapped like this then we couldn't use it.

Err... It's just another FORM of energy. Why do you think moving objects are slowed or stopped as you throw them away from a gravitational force? It's simply a form of potential energy. The kinetic and potential energy are freely interchangable. That's also why we need such energy to acheive escape velocity. The energy released does just 'disappear'. It is needed because the force of gravity is energistic itself and the energy is converted into potential energy, which needs to be matched or overcome by the kinetic energy. The forces of attraction and expansion, if you will.

That statement quotes that light has increased in speed. Which it can't. Matter and energy actually stops functioning and decaying through entropy at the speed of light, as I have already stated. As such, it CAN'T theoretically go faster than the speed of light, because you can't USE the energy to do so.

If perchance you mean that light doesn't increase in speed and that the change in distance is so small that we just wouldn't notice, don't forget that the universe and ALL the matter within, according to your theory has been epxanding for billions and billions of years. That makes the expansion pretty damn fast, even for what we perceive as 'small' objects since matter has been expanding for eons before we were even produced. In addition to this, why have we not noticed an effect when dealing with the, quite litterally, astronomical distances we can observe through space? If the same effect is happening here, on such a vast scale, then we would surely have noticed that the time taken for light to reach us for linearly increasing distances, would be exponentially greater. However, since the time is also linear and proportional to the distance, then we know that this cannot be so.

I'll just take this one last chance to prove you wrong again.

It now appears that there simply IS no reasoning with you. If you can't even open your mind to the known concepts of physics that have not changed over the billions of times they have been used then there is simply no point in discussing this with you.

As such, I'm going to discontinue my part in this debate and go and talk to the brick wall next to me, which will be more open the realities of the known universe than you are.

Lord Deker, I'm sorry to do this to you, but he's all yours. Good day.

 

I never get tired on agruement, but it seems our words do not work here as it normally would, Ferret. So, as Ferret quit, I would stop making any new points and focus on the old ones.

On the above quote show the light speed/distance/time question TWICE, and THIRD if my first asking is also included. My size increase by more than a trillion times in few second, right. Try some expotential equation and you know why. Your explaination does not work, Cobra.

For other points (Bohr, division energy) Ferret stated his doubt in his last post. I think Ferret's have point out the "problems" of ToEE well enough.

Chalupa Cobra, I really appreciate your effort on stating ToEE again clearly, so that no more confusion on your theory would occur (I hope). But I afraid these existing question will be enough to show the "problems" of ToEE. From now I will quote more, write less, to make sure this thread would not "make new holes on existing holes".

 

I will not accept a victory by default, here.

Ferret, not ONCE in this entire debate have you been more specific in your fortifications than to throw out the name of a theory or to say how many times such-and-such a physical law has been proven trillions of hundreds of billions of millions and millions of times. You don't seem to go so far as to connect these statements with your arguments with so much as a physical example or an explicit explanation (at least, one that's applicable to my arguments [you have yet to show me, explicitly, where the Bohr shift effect clashes with the ToEE]). Instead, you'd rather rail at my alleged misunderstanding of "the way the universe REALLY is". And when I ask you for some clarification on a point, you would rather point me to one of your previous posts and tell me that the answer's there and I should go back and find it (whether it's there or --as it seems more likely to me -- it's not). I have said it before and I think it bears repeating: you don't pay very close attention to the things I write.

You don't pay very close attention to the things I write. I have stated that the expansion PROVIDES the attractive force; one need not "overcome" the other. Of course, by "expansion" I imply the universal type and not that which goes on at the relative level. You have stumbled over this FIVE TIMES by my count. Please, pay more attention. You ask where the energy for the ToEE comes from (again) and I will state it EVEN more explicitly for you using your own words: the "energy" for the ToEE comes from the "potential" contained in matter, if that. You yourself have stated that the energy in the universe "goes to" zero, or is zero to begin with. The ToEE agrees with that. In fact, the ToEE agrees with pretty much ALL scientific thought in the world that has proven to be valid and it even goes towards fitting in with some of the things that we are still kicking around as theoretical.

You don't pay very close attention to the things I write. I have implied that the matter of the universe is losing its absolute density and here I state it: the matter of the universe is losing its absolute density. Please, pay more attention. It's that it's losing this density universally that makes it so that we don't observe this loss on a relative level (I don't see why you dredge up the "external matter infusion" thing again as this seems to cover it adequately enough). I think that's what you find so difficult to accept; the ToEE applies to EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE and you would rather break it down to a relative level.

My whole side of the argument has been to show you that our entire perception of the universe could be undergoing a universal change that we are entirely unaware of yet which meshes with our current theories and could possibly advance our knowledge of the way things are. Hell, man, new perspectives are the impetus for the advancement of science!

You cleverly dodge my challenge to define the the originator of "gravity" with the explanation that it's "potential energy". Potential from what, I ask?? You have left the question open-ended and it is the ToEE which provides the answer: this "potential energy" comes from the breakdown of matter; this breakdown was instilled in matter at the time of the Big Bang. You have sought to poke holes in the ToEE but you have only served to show how impervious it actually is. I listed the major arguments you have rallied and countered them each in turn to the benefit of the ToEE. You say that I "missed off the one major point" and go on to conveniently leave out just what that "point" is. Give me an explicit (read, EXPLICIT) physical example of where the ToEE fails and I will give you an example of where you have failed to understand the Theory (this goes for you, too, Deker, and anyone else who cares to interject).

By the bye, you DO know the meaning of relativistic, right??

 

Actually, if you spend just a few minutes doing the math on your TOEE and comparing it with actual observations, you'll realize it clashes with pretty much every observation ever made. If I understand it correctly the attractive force, provided by expansion, is not just dependant on mass but on shape as well (as all dimensions of a body of mass increase proportionally, right?).

Furthermore, in your theory, the gravitational acceleration of two bodies towards each other is provided by simply adding up the expansion of the two towards each other, which is a far cry from multiplying the two like in Newtonian mechanics.

It also completely fails to explain the fact that Newtionian mechanics necessary for accurately describing trajectories, that have been explained by general relativity (space is curved, and all that - which, by the way, makes an attempt at explaining gravity).

Also, can I point out that pulling crap out of your head like a logarithmic time scale is a pretty questionable thing to do, if it isn't a direct result of a fundamental fact? Now, I know this is something done before (like the Lorentz maths between electrical and magnetic forces, later fundamentally ratified by special relativity) but it's hardly a scientific basis for doubting existing theories that conform to observations.

Keep in mind that I haven't been doing any physics for about a year now, I'm getting back to my studies in December, so my instincts may be rusty. If I said anything stupid, feel free to point it out.

So no, you haven't made us doubt what we (think to) know about gravity.

 

Whoever said you won by default? :lol: I'm just not going to participate in this debate until you start listening to reason and start to explain you theory through observation. So far, as Calis has pointed out, not one aspect of your theory can be backed up through even simple observation, whislt every one of my arguments so far, whilst not stating specific events, are based purely upon that which we can and have observed to happen without fail.

 

Still, I demand an answer, or answers, on unsloved doubts.

It is Forth now...... :/

And for Bohr shift effect, re-read Ferret's post, maybe 2 or 3 of his post posted before, not the recent two, for sure.

Do you mean that the energy for the breakdown comes from Big Bang?

And there are Calis's question awaiting for more answers. (Welcome Calis ) If you don't answer them you can never get a "won by default".

What the hell is that?

Try this, Cobra.

I really like quoting now. It shows that it is not arguing hard and long, but the agruing got confused and questions not answered.

 

Calis, I never said that the expansion is dependent on shape. For the expansion to be perceived as proportional you would need an absolute reference point and there isn't one. When your arm has doubled in absolute size so has your trunk and your internal organs and the rest of your body, and so there is no perceived distortion of dimensions because it is all relative.

The expansion that occurs is EXPONENTIAL and so while the linear acceleration is added, the sum comes out the same as it does in Newtonian mechanics. In fact, the formula used to calculate the "force" of attraction is the same used in the Newtonian system; g is merely interpreted as something different yet having the same value. I believe I have stated this before. I also stated -- very early in this argument -- that space was not curved under the ToEE. This is because the need for that curvature is eliminated by the expansion.

What you say about the "Lorentz maths" is EXACTLY what I've been trying to get at this whole time. The ToEE can cast new light on quantum mechanics, chemistry, electricity, and who knows what else. Ghandi said, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Almost all of the greatest minds and advances of mankind have had to undergo these steps before actualization. With you people, I have gone the first two steps and am working on the last two.

Certainly, we have made many observations and yet much of it lacks explanation. The ToEE IS that explanation. Although it is still but a theory it can be used as a guide to advancing thought. It has not gone against observation yet. And if it has, point it out to me because I do not see it.

Ferret, I know the distinction between concession and victory by default. I used the term "victory by default" because you DID NOT concede. You stated that you were withdrawing from the debate, defaulting on your side of things. The ToEE is still a theory and at this stage almost unprovable through observation. I came up with it through my contacts with the sciences and it seems to act as a bridge between them very nicely. It is a DEDUCTION, and now it is up to mankind to use INDUCTIVE thought based in the ToEE to advance the cause of science. We debated the uses of these processes earlier and I hope that you realize one cannot occur without the other and that BOTH are science's best tools.

Deker, I feel that I have answered your question regarding light in previous posts. Perhaps I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?? The same goes for Ferret's Bohr shift effect argument. His terms, to me, were phrased in the most general sense and didn't provide much applicability to the subject at hand. Yes, Deker, I stated that the potential energy which fuels the expansion of the universe was invested by the Big Bang.

I feel that I have addressed all your objections to the ToEE and I invite more of them or your acceptance of it.