Surely JWST is just confirming that which those of us who wouldn't sell our mothers just to get grant money as well as those of us with an iota of common sense have known all along, a theory regardless of how ridiculous it is, is just a theory.
This makes the most sense to me! As occupants of a simulation, we would be 'inside the fishbowl' so to speak, with a limited view of what is really happening. IF it is really happening.
It should look like it's expanding at different rates because we are not at the center. Haven't we already covered this? Why is this an issue?
Well, the explanation is simple. The standard cosmoillogical model is wrong, because it is based on pure pseudo-science, i.e. general relativity, and relativistic redshifts which were never experimentally proven and which have been disproven here:
vasileffect.blogspot.com
AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED
This paper proposes a paradigm shift in the understanding of redshift. By using just two simple physics formulas, it shows that Refraction causes redshift, named Refractional redshift. By analysing the Pound and Rebka experiment, it shows that the
www.academia.edu
An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)
AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. ...
vasileffect.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Maybe general relativity and its redshifts are seriously wrong ?
View: https://youtu.be/CyTj4hpBEm4?si=8w9XjQUFvIv01AX-
Last edited:
Hello dear sir , I hope you don't get annoyed at corrective posts ?
The Universe is the entirety of observed space and unseen space plus the contents of the space .
To say the Universe is expanding is actually a false statement because space itself does not expand and cannot expand . Any given point of space (x0,y0,z0,) has no velocity .
The correct wording for the James Webb confirmation would be that the radius between visual sources is extending at different rates .
I appreciate you are using the word expanding in the present terminology sense but in all honesty , it is illogical semantics .
Of course space expansion is illogical, as is space bending and curvature. Space is not a physical object which can expand or bend. It is the lack there of. Imagining geodesics in space is pure insanity and pseudo science because a geodesic is, by definition, the shortest line between two points on a spherical or curved surface (Oxford def.). Space has no surface, and time does not have one either, so space-time geodesics are a complete non-sense.
The notion of Geodesic comes from Geodesy, the science which studies earth's shape, which has a curved surface (Geo meaning Earth, obviously). It has nothing to do with space, which has no shape or surface. General relativity is based on a complete misuse and misunderstanding of the notion of geodesics. It is completelly illogical as it ignores the definition which requires a surface, which space obviously does not and cannot have.
Unless it is a physical object, like the solid sky firmanent from the babble. Which is not what Einstein believed in, as he called it a book of childish superstitions.
The notion of Geodesic comes from Geodesy, the science which studies earth's shape, which has a curved surface (Geo meaning Earth, obviously). It has nothing to do with space, which has no shape or surface. General relativity is based on a complete misuse and misunderstanding of the notion of geodesics. It is completelly illogical as it ignores the definition which requires a surface, which space obviously does not and cannot have.
Unless it is a physical object, like the solid sky firmanent from the babble. Which is not what Einstein believed in, as he called it a book of childish superstitions.
Last edited:
Einstein's conceptual thoughts on the topology of space-time was in essence a spherical nature simply because that is more simpler to work with than the envision of a space-time that was enduring continuous deformations in expansion .
Space is not a physical object which can expand or bend but the conserved point energy that is the fabric of space-time can curve . The Fabric of space-time cannot expand but it can extend in any direction by internal ''free'' energy of the manifold adjoining the edge of space-time .
What is the 'fabric of space-time' ? From what is is fabricated of, if space is not physical ? Is it a mathematically fabricated one ? How does that make it real ?
You say that it is 'the conserved point energy', but what does that mean ? From where does the fabric of space-time get it's point energy ? If 'the fabric of space' has no mass, then it can have no energy.
And if it has energy, then it has mass, and therefore it is a physical object. So can you decide which one is it ?
[/QUOTE]
The fabric of space-time is the quantum mainframe that bridges the absoluteness of space
[/QUOTE]
Space is not physical but it has several properties . The Fabric of space-time is constructed of adjoined points of light that is beyond the visual spectrum . These points of light can be considered as relic energy , being trillions and trillions of years old .
Absolute space has several properties and one of these properties is the inherent property of gravity-B . This mechanism allows for any given point to conserve a single point of light energy . The point energy manifested over trillions and trillions of years ago .
The Universe started with the existence of space , space cannot be created or destroyed nor is it movable .Over trillions of years and space started to manifest single points of light that were sparsely spread throughout space . Trillions and trillions of more years went by before eventually manifested points of light became adjoined , forming space-time ( a quantum mainframe)
@TheBox
Now you are switching to quantum pseudo-physics to explain the point energy of the fabric of space-time of general relativity pseudo-physics. Because you cant explain it with general relativity, and neither with special relativity where the energy-mass equivalation shows space having zero point energy, thus contradicting the notion of dark energy of vacuum. Which when using quantum pseudo physics to calculate it gives a ridiculously large number, 120 orders of magnitude from what GR predicts, which is known as the Vacuum Catastrophe. Therefore general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics, which is a falsified theory given how incredibly wrong is in its predictions, so it makes no sense to explain one with the other.
Furthermore, it is obvious that general relativity is not compatible with special relativity, since in SR the energy of vacuum is 0 from the energy-mass equivalation. And it is obvious that general relativity is wrong, because 0 is not whatever value the cosmoillogical constant is set to by big bang pseudo-scientists (unless they set it to 0, of course). And because the cosmo constant has unit of 1/m^2, which is not Joule, so they dont even get the units right.
And because it's prediction of gravitational redshift is false as it was confused with refractional redshift by Pound and Rebka. As it has been conclusively and undeniably proved in the paper I posted.
Now you are switching to quantum pseudo-physics to explain the point energy of the fabric of space-time of general relativity pseudo-physics. Because you cant explain it with general relativity, and neither with special relativity where the energy-mass equivalation shows space having zero point energy, thus contradicting the notion of dark energy of vacuum. Which when using quantum pseudo physics to calculate it gives a ridiculously large number, 120 orders of magnitude from what GR predicts, which is known as the Vacuum Catastrophe. Therefore general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics, which is a falsified theory given how incredibly wrong is in its predictions, so it makes no sense to explain one with the other.
Furthermore, it is obvious that general relativity is not compatible with special relativity, since in SR the energy of vacuum is 0 from the energy-mass equivalation. And it is obvious that general relativity is wrong, because 0 is not whatever value the cosmoillogical constant is set to by big bang pseudo-scientists (unless they set it to 0, of course). And because the cosmo constant has unit of 1/m^2, which is not Joule, so they dont even get the units right.
And because it's prediction of gravitational redshift is false as it was confused with refractional redshift by Pound and Rebka. As it has been conclusively and undeniably proved in the paper I posted.
Last edited:
General relativity is wrong because it was experimentally disproven, not proven, as the gravitational redshift experiment was based on refraction from helium which changes the wavelength, and was therefore doctored.
It is also wrong because the vacuum energy is zero, as the equation E=mc^2 clearly shows. And because the cosmoillogical constant, Einsteins biggest blunder, which was artificially added by him to prevent the universe from contracting from gravity, as his theory predicted (it never predicted an expansion, but the exact opposite) and then removed, is not a constant and is pure junk science. As after Einstein removed it in shame it was added again and adjusted and readjusted by big bang pseudo-scientists to explain their stupid interpretation of redshift as from space expansion caused by a dark vacuum energy, completelly ignoring special relativity which shows that such vacuum energy is impossible to exist because E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass. And even if it had mass, that would just bend space according to GR gravity theory that mass curves space, not expand it. So it would cause a contraction of the universe, not an expansion, just like GR originally predicted.
So thats why cosmology is in a crysis, because big bang scientists are complete pseudo scientists who dont understand basic physics and confuse refraction with gravitation and think redshift is caused by expansion because Einstein invented a cosmoillogical constant from his a$$, which he never said that it was the energy of vaccum, because that contradicts SR, and which has the unit 1/m^2- which is not Joule so it has nothing to do with energy. It's just a metric number he made up to prevent the universe from contracting, so that his field equations could be consistent with a static universe. But that is just doctoring the theory to prevent it from being falsified by observations. Because by altering that cosmoillogical constant, his theory can be compatible with all posible states of the universe: contracting, static, expanding. That is not how science works. That is how pseudo-science works. And even the GR experiments were doctored, as I have proved in the paper linked above.
It is also wrong because the vacuum energy is zero, as the equation E=mc^2 clearly shows. And because the cosmoillogical constant, Einsteins biggest blunder, which was artificially added by him to prevent the universe from contracting from gravity, as his theory predicted (it never predicted an expansion, but the exact opposite) and then removed, is not a constant and is pure junk science. As after Einstein removed it in shame it was added again and adjusted and readjusted by big bang pseudo-scientists to explain their stupid interpretation of redshift as from space expansion caused by a dark vacuum energy, completelly ignoring special relativity which shows that such vacuum energy is impossible to exist because E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass. And even if it had mass, that would just bend space according to GR gravity theory that mass curves space, not expand it. So it would cause a contraction of the universe, not an expansion, just like GR originally predicted.
So thats why cosmology is in a crysis, because big bang scientists are complete pseudo scientists who dont understand basic physics and confuse refraction with gravitation and think redshift is caused by expansion because Einstein invented a cosmoillogical constant from his a$$, which he never said that it was the energy of vaccum, because that contradicts SR, and which has the unit 1/m^2- which is not Joule so it has nothing to do with energy. It's just a metric number he made up to prevent the universe from contracting, so that his field equations could be consistent with a static universe. But that is just doctoring the theory to prevent it from being falsified by observations. Because by altering that cosmoillogical constant, his theory can be compatible with all posible states of the universe: contracting, static, expanding. That is not how science works. That is how pseudo-science works. And even the GR experiments were doctored, as I have proved in the paper linked above.
Last edited:
I think the first sentence is poorly worded as it suggests it is a "where you measure" problem.
The phrase "Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates" gives the impression that the issue isn't a "how you measure" problem - which is what it really is.
I understand that technically the CMB could be thought of as a location or a "where", but it really is more of a "when" (300k years after the Big Bang).
The differences in "how we look" or measure using CMB or Cepheid variables give results of 67 vs. 74 km/s/mpc respectively and are distinct results for each experiment. They do not change based on "where" in the sky they are "measure".
JWST only confirmed that it was not an error in the accuracy of Cephiad data itself, so that means it must be in the assumptions or theory related to one of the two types of measurements.
The phrase "Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates" gives the impression that the issue isn't a "how you measure" problem - which is what it really is.
I understand that technically the CMB could be thought of as a location or a "where", but it really is more of a "when" (300k years after the Big Bang).
The differences in "how we look" or measure using CMB or Cepheid variables give results of 67 vs. 74 km/s/mpc respectively and are distinct results for each experiment. They do not change based on "where" in the sky they are "measure".
JWST only confirmed that it was not an error in the accuracy of Cephiad data itself, so that means it must be in the assumptions or theory related to one of the two types of measurements.
Last edited:
Space cannot expand or contract , peoples concept of the Universe is totally incorrect .
Things that occupy space can recede or retract relative to the observer
+ve= recede
-ve=retract
The Universe is NOT an inflated ''balloon'' .
I've thought about this a lot more these recent years. I wouldn't necessarily say there wasn't a big bang, but not how people tend to think of it. Probably, our group of planets was borne out of an exploding star. The whole galaxy, perhaps. It's just one of those things we'll never fully understand.
What is hard for most people to grasp is that evolution is an endless cycle, always in motion. There has always been something out there. Perhaps one phenomenon that we have confirmed is that zero yields zero.
We have evidence of the big bang, like we can actually see it. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of space.
If you reffer to the CMBR, it can easily be explained without the big-bang, such as that it is simply light coming from very distant galaxies , i.e. tired light which was redshifted beyond the visible spectrum to microwave radiation. There is simply no reason to assume that it is light coming from the big bang, other than we want the big bang to be confirmed by any means, and by using Occam's razor we have to choose the simplest of the explanations which has the least number of entities and unnecessary assumptions. The big bang is a completely unnecesary entity in this case, as is the asumption that the CMBR was generated by it, since we can easily explain the CMBR without it.
Last edited:
Just saying "remove the big bag and it will work out better" is some of the laziest reasoning I have ever heard here. Come up with valid examples how this would help rather than vague assertions that it should. That belongs in the flat earther forums.
There is no evidence of a big bang , you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics .
The Big Bang Theory starts with a miraculous conception , spontaneously creating a high temperature , high density state from nothing .
It implies not even space existed which is an impossibility because space cannot be created or destroyed .
Physical expansion also requires ''empty'' adjoining space to expand into or the expansion cannot occur .
This is basic physics that demonstrates the BB is gibberish .
There are a lot of people commenting who do not agree the BB theory is anyway logical or satisfies scientific vigour .
I too don't believe in the Big Bang
I believe the universe is infinitely old
Cosmology has determined that the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to the dark energy
We need to identify a process that creates new matter in order to maintain the same density of matter as the universe expands
I suspect production of particle-antiparticle pairs in black holes due to the extreme gravity shear, and ejection of some of those, could be that process
YES! I have actually thought of this very idea; what if we were in a black hole that has "consumed" all these other galaxies and the reason there is "inconsistent expansion" is that the black hole that we are in is irregularly consuming matter/energy or the size/amount of matter/energy. Maybe they have misunderstood black holes?!? Maybe black holes aren't these destructive all consuming of life and matter machines but yet a way the universe recycles itself?!? I don't know. My ideas are very rudimentary and may have no real baring on anything remotely scientific....
I totally agree with your infinity ideology. Even us as living now, dead later. We are just energy and carbon/water matter after all. On earth, it's infinity of a renewal circle. I'm going to put my two cents in it though. Expert scientists seem baffled by the fact that it's different than 2019. The only one thing that doesn't change is the simple one denominator in every situations since we had the capability of recording it; "TIME"! In my perspective, finding out where the universe starts and ends doesn't bother me. What bothers me is why there's a clock involved! We know by now that everything has a purpose. Humans haven't been given that. Top of the food chain with no manuals or anything. Makes me wonder that mother earth is in a rush for something... My guess, to survive through time with her own made army/soldiers. At last, if time really is the matter and the essence of all, I'm frightened because since the day we're born and become aware, in our mind and reality, it's our biggest fear/enemy and we don't know why or do anything to understand it, we search the universe for it instead of finding the answers here...we are energy of the whole universe...
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Are tumours caused by important pathways becoming blocked by electrolyte sedimentation ?
- Started by TheBox
- Replies: 1
-
Could distilled water turned into an acidic solution flush out a biological life's system ?
- Started by TheBox
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Is skin cancer a bacteria infection between the skin layers and the flesh ?
- Started by TheBox
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram