Merged Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark?

[Pixie of key]

Do you find any reason why the nuclei of the atoms could not consist of expanding densities that recycle the expanding pushing force that has, for example, the nature of the expanding light?

The speed of the naturally expanding light would accelerate all the time in the same proportion as the substance / matter and the light expanding.

And why is there any reason why the expansive dwindling of the nuclei of expanding atoms could not extend all the time to what's already there and what are the widening recesses circulating?

The space now can not at least prevent the expansion of the separate nuclei of atomic nuclei!

And as long as the system consists of distinct stagnation, its distinct dwindles can be scattered in space in the larger and larger regions.

And even so as to spread from the outside of the scattering system, it adds to what is already out there in the already existing space-dispersing system.

Keksittekö jonkun syyn minkä takia atomien ytimet eivät voisi koostuu laajenevista tihentymistä jotka kierrättävät laajenevaa työntävää voimaa jolla on mm. laajenevan valon luonne?

Luonnollisesti laajenevan valon vauhti kiihtyisi koko ajan samassa suhteessa kuin aine ja valo laajenevat.

Entäpä onko olemassa joku syy minkä takia laajenevien atomien ytimien erillisiin laajeneviin tihentymiin ei voisi työntyä koko ajan lisää mitä siellä jo on ja mitä laajenevat tihentymät keskenään kierrättävät?

Avaruus nyt ei ainakaan voi estää atomien ytimien erillisten tihentymien laajenemista!

Ja niin kauan aikaa kun systeemi koostuu erillisistä tihentymistä, sen erilliset tihentymät voivat hajaantua avaruudessa isommalle ja isommalle alueelle.

Ja vieläpä niin että hajaantuvan systeemin sekaan työntyy ulkoapäin lisää sitä mitä siinä ulos päin jo olemassa olevaan avaruuteen hajaantuvassa systeemissä jo on.

 

[steenkh]

Do you find any reason why the nuclei of the atoms could not consist of expanding densities that recycle the expanding pushing force that has, for example, the nature of the expanding light?

Yep: physics. None of the expanding densities that you speak of have been found in nature, and light does not have an expanding nature.

The speed of the naturally expanding light would accelerate all the time in the same proportion as the substance / matter and the light expanding.

Nope: light has only a single speed, appropriately enough called the speed of light. You are talking verifiable nonsense.

 

[Pixie of key]

Yep: physics. None of the expanding densities that you speak of have been found in nature, and light does not have an expanding nature.




Nope: light has only a single speed, appropriately enough called the speed of light. You are talking verifiable nonsense.

steenkh, sorry about that, but Onesimpleprinciple just IS too much for your brain.

 

[Pixie of key]

Unexpected Discovery of a Bright Cow

https://aasnova.org/2018/09/28/unexpected-discovery-of-a-bright-cow/

Maybe Black star supernova

Black star is so density matter that is emit dark light for us.

��

 

[The Man]

Do you find any reason why the nuclei of the atoms could not consist of expanding densities that recycle the expanding pushing force that has, for example, the nature of the expanding light?

Sure, "densities" that are "expanding" are becoming less dense and there is no indication of that. Aslo the phrase "recycle the expanding pushing force" is just gibberish as forces are simply either countered or not. With a countered force an equilibrium or homeostasis is reached. With an unbalanced force then things like motion, expansion and/or compression can result. You are just stringing words together without any particular regards to their meaning. Now, it is well understood that english is not your first language, so some translation difficulties can be expected. However, form the assertions of other native Finnish speakers the meaninglessness of you statements are not simply a translatory artifact but instead a central aspect of your assertions.

The speed of the naturally expanding light would accelerate all the time in the same proportion as the substance / matter and the light expanding.

Nope, again a change in the speed of light would alter the frequency to wavelength relation and be readily apparent.

Again, if light and matter were "expanding" "in the same proportion" as you assert then we wouldn't detect any red shifting (change in the wavelength of light) as a result.

And why is there any reason why the expansive dwindling of the nuclei of expanding atoms could not extend all the time to what's already there and what are the widening recesses circulating?

Well, first off "expansive dwindling" is an oxymoron and second, as noted above, such expansion would reduce density. Again, unless the metric of space were also expanding. So once again we are right back to everything you want to claim leading directly to the one thing you want to oppose, expanding space.

The space now can not at least prevent the expansion of the separate nuclei of atomic nuclei!

And as long as the system consists of distinct stagnation, its distinct dwindles can be scattered in space in the larger and larger regions.

And even so as to spread from the outside of the scattering system, it adds to what is already out there in the already existing space-dispersing system.

Again, that reduces density and there is no evidence for that. See, the problem with trying to make your "expanding densities" indistinguishable form, well, non-"expanding densities" is that it requires what you don't want, an expanding metric of space. Additionally it means we should not observe any resulting redshifting and would be simply and completely compatible with just non-"expanding densities". So as a result you simply, and apparently intentionally, make your own "expanding densities" assertions superfluous.

Keksittekö jonkun syyn minkä takia atomien ytimet eivät voisi koostuu laajenevista tihentymistä jotka kierrättävät laajenevaa työntävää voimaa jolla on mm. laajenevan valon luonne?

Luonnollisesti laajenevan valon vauhti kiihtyisi koko ajan samassa suhteessa kuin aine ja valo laajenevat.

Entäpä onko olemassa joku syy minkä takia laajenevien atomien ytimien erillisiin laajeneviin tihentymiin ei voisi työntyä koko ajan lisää mitä siellä jo on ja mitä laajenevat tihentymät keskenään kierrättävät?

Avaruus nyt ei ainakaan voi estää atomien ytimien erillisten tihentymien laajenemista!

Ja niin kauan aikaa kun systeemi koostuu erillisistä tihentymistä, sen erilliset tihentymät voivat hajaantua avaruudessa isommalle ja isommalle alueelle.

Ja vieläpä niin että hajaantuvan systeemin sekaan työntyy ulkoapäin lisää sitä mitä siinä ulos päin jo olemassa olevaan avaruuteen hajaantuvassa systeemissä jo on.

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?


If not, why not?


If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

Anteeksi en voi edes jäsentää sitä viimeistä bittiä.

Joten, oletko todella kokeillut tätä köysikokeilua vielä?


Jos ei, miksi ei?


Jos on, niin miksi et ilmoittanut, mitä löysit?

Se osoittaisi selkeästi vetovoiman ja työntövoimien välisen eron. Erityisesti materiaaleista, jotka hyvin reagoivat eri tavoin eriarvoisiin voimavaroihin.

Kuinka tämän kokeilun havainnot tukevat sinun "näkökulmastasi", etenkään siitä, että ei ole vetovoimia.

 

[Pixie of key]

"Well, first off "expansive dwindling" is an oxymoron and second, as noted above, such expansion would reduce density. Again, unless the metric of space were also expanding. So once again we are right back to everything you want to claim leading directly to the one thing you want to oppose, expanding space."

Did you look any my video yet?

I think you dont or then all that is just too much for you.

 

[Pixie of key]

"Again, that reduces density and there is no evidence for that. See, the problem with trying to make your "expanding densities" indistinguishable form, well, non-"expanding densities" is that it requires what you don't want, an expanding metric of space. Additionally it means we should not observe any resulting redshifting and would be simply and completely compatible with just non-"expanding densities". So as a result you simply, and apparently intentionally, make your own "expanding densities" assertions superfluous."


I just wonder that which kind of expanding machine can found out that other matter is later not so density what they are now, if that machine is later same way not so density what all other expanding matter is later?!?

������

��

 

[The Man]

"Well, first off "expansive dwindling" is an oxymoron and second, as noted above, such expansion would reduce density. Again, unless the metric of space were also expanding. So once again we are right back to everything you want to claim leading directly to the one thing you want to oppose, expanding space."

Did you look any my video yet?

I think you dont or then all that is just too much for you.

��

Yes, as noted many times already I looked at the one where you just push something with a bit a string between your fingers as opposed to pushing it with the fully extended rope as stated in the experiment. Again this just shows that you know why the experiment wouldn't work and that your simple disdain for pulling forces can't overcome neither your dependence on them nor your knowledge of that dependence, as demonstrated in the video.

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?


If not, why not?


If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

Anteeksi en voi edes jäsentää sitä viimeistä bittiä.

Joten, oletko todella kokeillut tätä köysikokeilua vielä?


Jos ei, miksi ei?


Jos on, niin miksi et ilmoittanut, mitä löysit?

Se osoittaisi selkeästi vetovoiman ja työntövoimien välisen eron. Erityisesti materiaaleista, jotka hyvin reagoivat eri tavoin eriarvoisiin voimavaroihin.

Kuinka tämän kokeilun havainnot tukevat sinun "näkökulmastasi", etenkään siitä, että ei ole vetovoimia.

 

[The Man]

"Again, that reduces density and there is no evidence for that. See, the problem with trying to make your "expanding densities" indistinguishable form, well, non-"expanding densities" is that it requires what you don't want, an expanding metric of space. Additionally it means we should not observe any resulting redshifting and would be simply and completely compatible with just non-"expanding densities". So as a result you simply, and apparently intentionally, make your own "expanding densities" assertions superfluous."


I just wonder that which kind of expanding machine can found out that other matter is later not so density what they are now, if that machine is later same way not so density what all other expanding matter is later?!?

������

��

Again trying to make your "expanding matter" simply undetectable also makes it simply irrelevant.


What makes you think is has to be a "machine"?


Density for matter is a ratio of mass to volume. For energy it is energy over volume. If you increase the volume without increasing the energy or mass you don't have the same density. Also as noted before in this thread some forces are dependent on distance so increasing the distance decreases the force and without a corresponding decrease in mass F = Ma would no longer hold. It ain't some "kind of expanding machine" it is that trivial physical relations fall apart without such claimed "expanding densities" being irrelevantly undetectable.

 

[Pixie of key]

Again trying to make your "expanding matter" simply undetectable also makes it simply irrelevant.


What makes you think is has to be a "machine"?


Density for matter is a ratio of mass to volume. For energy it is energy over volume. If you increase the volume without increasing the energy or mass you don't have the same density. Also as noted before in this thread some forces are dependent on distance so increasing the distance decreases the force and without a corresponding decrease in mass F = Ma would no longer hold. It ain't some "kind of expanding machine" it is that trivial physical relations fall apart without such claimed "expanding densities" being irrelevantly undetectable.

������

This is very Fanny.

Csn you see that?!?

You can try to proof with density changing and something else that matter cant expanding.

Can you try to do that with expanding space?

No you cant!!!

Thats why expanding nucleus of atoms model is science!!

And thats why expanding space is religion!!!

������

��

 

[Pixie of key]

Expanding space is god which dont exist.

It is hokkus pokkus simsalabim happening with out explanation!!!

 

[The Man]

������

This is very Fanny.

Csn you see that?!?

You can try to proof with density changing and something else that matter cant expanding.

Actually it would be you that has to prove matter is expanding as you describe. Which is only problematic for you as you seem to try to describe it as undetectable. It is not incumbent on anyone to prove that it is not expanding, undetectably or otherwise.

Can you try to do that with expanding space?

No you cant!!!

Thats why expanding nucleus of atoms model is science!!

And thats why expanding space is religion!!!

������

��

Again evidence for expanding space is in the cosmological red shift (a lengthening of wavelength). Again something we should not detect from your assertions of your 'expanding light and matter'.

 

[Pixie of key]

"Again evidence for expanding space is in the cosmological red shift (a lengthening of wavelength). Again something we should not detect from your assertions of your 'expanding light and matter'."

������

This all is just too much for you!


Again, evidence for expanding light is in the cosmological red shift (a lengthening of wavelength).

That happening because expanding light interactive with other expanding light.

New expanding light waves pushing more speed for old expanding light waves etc.

This is something what we can check out.

We can try to manipulate light moving direction with billions years old lights and if we can change light moving direction with billion years old light, then we know that space dont curving and space dont expanding.

You cant try to manipulate space any way.

You just have to BELIEVE, that there is hokkus pokkus expanding space.

And this all is too much for you.

��

 

[The Man]

"Again evidence for expanding space is in the cosmological red shift (a lengthening of wavelength). Again something we should not detect from your assertions of your 'expanding light and matter'."

������

This all is just too much for you!

Again, not in the least.

Again, evidence for expanding light is in the cosmological red shift (a lengthening of wavelength).

Nope, not the way you try to assert it, that the light and matter, including our instrumentality and how we measure distances are all expanding. Again, if that were the case then we wouldn't find that change in wavelength.

That happening because expanding light interactive with other expanding light.

New expanding light waves pushing more speed for old expanding light waves etc.

Again, there is no indication of "more speed for old expanding light". Again, that would change the frequency to wavelength relation and be easily detectable.

This is something what we can check out.

We can and we do and we find the evidence directly incompatible with your assertions.

We can try to manipulate light moving direction with billions years old lights and if we can change light moving direction with billion years old light, then we know that space dont curving and space dont expanding.

Or we can just look for gravitational waves which demonstrate that space in fact is curving in a variable manner.

Also as noted here before a curved physical space has physical implications. The parallel transport of a vector around a closed loop in a curved space will end up pointing in a different direction upon completion of that loop. Also the three angles of a triangle will not sum to 180 degrees in a curved space. The former is part of the calculation of the precession of the orbit of Mercury and as I recall experiments have been planned to test the latter.

You cant try to manipulate space any way.

You just have to BELIEVE, that there is hokkus pokkus expanding space.

And this all is too much for you.

��

Again (lower energy) experiments in that regard are already underway and with the detection of gravitational waves we have experimental confirmation that space is indeed manipulatable in extreme energy conditions.

 

[Pixie of key]

gravitation waves do not change the space.

the so-called gravitation waves are also an expanding pushing force that interacts with the expanding atom's expanding atoms cores and allows them to expand momentarily faster.

and then you think something is happening to the space, even though there really is something that can really be understood about a matter / substance in space. An issue that can be described in words and visually.

the so-called the gravitational waves moves in the space and interacts with the atomic nuclei which expanding "in" space.

 

[The Man]

gravitation waves do not change the space.

the so-called gravitation waves are also an expanding pushing force that interacts with the expanding atom's expanding atoms cores and allows them to expand momentarily faster.

and then you think something is happening to the space, even though there really is something that can really be understood about a matter / substance in space. An issue that can be described in words and visually.

the so-called the gravitational waves moves in the space and interacts with the atomic nuclei which expanding "in" space.

Once again there no evidence for your assertions of "an expanding pushing force that interacts with the expanding atom's expanding atoms cores and allows them to expand momentarily faster." and multiple areas of observation and evidence that directly refute your assertions.


So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?


If not, why not?


If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

Anteeksi en voi edes jäsentää sitä viimeistä bittiä.

Joten, oletko todella kokeillut tätä köysikokeilua vielä?


Jos ei, miksi ei?


Jos on, niin miksi et ilmoittanut, mitä löysit?

Se osoittaisi selkeästi vetovoiman ja työntövoimien välisen eron. Erityisesti materiaaleista, jotka hyvin reagoivat eri tavoin eriarvoisiin voimavaroihin.

Kuinka tämän kokeilun havainnot tukevat sinun "näkökulmastasi", etenkään siitä, että ei ole vetovoimia.

 

[Pixie of key]

Once again there no evidence for your assertions of "an expanding space because space dont emit information.

So, you just have to BELIEVE that there is god which you call with name expanding space.

 

[The Man]

Once again there no evidence for your assertions of "an expanding space because space dont emit information.

So, you just have to BELIEVE that there is god which you call with name expanding space.

��

I have never made any such assertions. Why do you feel the need to attribute quotes to people who have said nothing of the sort? Again, if for some reason you require space to "emit information" and it, well, "dont", then that is simply your problem.

 

[Pixie of key]

I have never made any such assertions. Why do you feel the need to attribute quotes to people who have said nothing of the sort? Again, if for some reason you require space to "emit information" and it, well, "dont", then that is simply your problem.

If somebody want to proof that god exist and you dont have any possibility to check out science way, is there god, i think problem is that person who try proof that god exist.

 

[The Man]

If somebody want to proof that god exist and you dont have any possibility to check out science way, is there god, i think problem is that person who try proof that god exist.

You're the only one talking about gods, so again the problem remains simply yours. Again cosmological expansion is being tested in a "science way".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Observational_evidence