• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixie of key: Resorts to insults and the usual delusions

Pixie of key said:
There is people who say, space expanding.
....
Click to expand...
Descending to insults and the usual delusions from a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos.

The people who say that spacetime is expanding have physical evidence that spacetime is expanding as you have been told many times - they do not lie :jaw-dropp!

It is a lie that cosmology ("space expanding") is a religion.

It is a delusion that protons and neutrons are expanding just because supernovas and nuclear bombs exist :eek:!

It is a lie that "Nobody cant explain how space expanding and why" because the how and why have been explained for a 100 years!

Anyone just drawing silly cartons is lying if they state that they can explain anything, e.g. the existence, perfect back body spectrum and power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
 
Last edited:
what happens to space expanding when it expands?

the metric grid grows.

What is it based?

It is based on the fact that space is expanding.

what explanation?

nowhere.

Space is expanding in some way somehow. itself somehow. no one can explain how.

it expands, but not out of the way. but somehow it expands.

Zeus provides lightning.


How?

Somehow, some way. Do not ask. but do not think the big boys as saying.

I do not believe expanding into space, I did not believe Zeus, I dont believe curving space, and I am not believe the creator god.

I would argue that the matter / and light are expanding.

Today model an atoms are totally wrong!

love
1038
:)
 
The big boys have this thing called math. It's really good at modelling the physical universe and producing surprising predictions that are borne out by quantitative observation. You should look into it and how this language describes the cosmos and expansion.
 
Mathematic rules, Yes

"If the calculation of the atom and the virtual particle energy levels slots will be held throughout the best physics conversion calculation, this empty space, energy rating - 120 orders of magnitude greater than the energy of all the other parts of the universe - is without a doubt the worst If the energy of empty space would not be nearly so great, repulsion caused by it (you remember the empty space. matching energy cosmological constant) is sufficient to blow the Earth immediately."



Mathematic rules.

Protons and neutrons sufficient to blow the all the time.

And recycling expanding energy with eachother all a time.

Love
1038
 
Pixie of key said:
Mathematic rules, Yes

"If the calculation of the atom and the virtual particle energy levels slots will be held throughout the best physics conversion calculation, this empty space, energy rating - 120 orders of magnitude greater than the energy of all the other parts of the universe - is without a doubt the worst If the energy of empty space would not be nearly so great, repulsion caused by it (you remember the empty space. matching energy cosmological constant) is sufficient to blow the Earth immediately."



Mathematic rules.

Protons and neutrons sufficient to blow the all the time.

And recycling expanding energy with eachother all a time.

Love
1038
Click to expand...

Can you show your math on this?
 
"Partially based on the calculations of Darwin, an important criticism was given by Henri Poincaré in 1908.[42] He concluded that the attraction is proportional to {\displaystyle S{\sqrt {\rho }}v} S{\sqrt {\rho }}v, where S is earth's molecular surface area, v is the velocity of the particles, and ρ is the density of the medium. Following Laplace, he argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for S is at the most a ten-millionth of the Earth's surface. Now, drag (i.e. the resistance of the medium) is proportional to Sρv and therefore the ratio of drag to attraction is inversely proportional to Sv. To reduce drag, Poincaré calculated a lower limit for v = 24 · 1017 times the speed of light. So there are lower limits for Sv and v, and an upper limit for S and with those values one can calculate the produced heat, which is proportional to Sρv3. The calculation shows that earth's temperature would rise by 1026 degrees per second. Poincaré noticed, "that the earth could not long stand such a regime." Poincaré also analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating problem. After describing a similar re-radiation model like Thomson, he concluded: "Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Le Sage's theory tenable".

He also stated that if in Lorentz' model the absorbed energy is fully converted into heat, that would raise earth's temperature by 1013 degrees per second. Poincaré then went on to consider Le Sage's theory in the context of the "new dynamics" that had been developed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, specifically recognizing the relativity principle. For a particle theory, he remarked that "it is difficult to imagine a law of collision compatible with the principle of relativity", and the problems of drag and heating remain."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

Mathematic rules.

There is all behind extremely fast movement / energy which get quarks and photons expanding all time.

I know where that extremy fast energy come from.and why is so fast.

And why there is later more and more that extremely fast movement / energy.

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/

And yes, there is mathematic for that all ready.

Thanks for Poincare.

Love
1038
:)
 
Last edited:
Pixie of key: LLies about cosmology ("space expanding")

Pixie of key said:
what happens to space expanding when it expands?
Click to expand...
Followed by lies from a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos who has been told the truth many times.

In the true world, an expanding universe was derived from General Relativity, a prediction that galaxies would have a redshift increasing with distance was made and that prediction was verified with observations :jaw-dropp! This was first published in by 1927 by Georges Lemaitre in a French journal. Edwin Hubble in 1929 provided an more comprehensive and better known set of observations that established that the universe is expanding.

For the last 89 years, theory and observations have worked together and confirmed that the universe is expanding: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

It is a lie that expanding space is explained "nowhere".
It is a lie that "no one can explain how".
Ranting abut religion yet again from someone who has the religion of "my cartoons and fantasies are the real world" :eek:!
 
Last edited:
Pixie of key: The delsuion that he is Henri Poincare

Pixie of key said:
"Partially based on the calculations of Darwin, an important criticism was given by Henri Poincaré in 1908.[42]...
Click to expand...
Delusion certainly rules in that post because you are not Henri Poincare :jaw-dropp!
You are obsessing about a random Wikipedia article where Henri Poincare showed that Le Sage's theory of gravitation was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Pixie of key: Lies about mathematics for his delsuion and Poincare

Pixie of key said:
And yes, there is mathematic for that all ready.

Thanks for Poincare.
Click to expand...
That is a lie because Henri Poincare showing that Le Sage's theory of gravitation was wrong in 1908 is not mathematics supporting delusions from a Finnish physics crackpot with no known mathematical ability, little knowledge of physics shown, lots of hand waving and some primitive videos dating from 2008 that contain no mathematics.

Whoops - I missed an anniversary. 8 years of abysmal ignorance and delusions from Pixy of Key in this thread begun on 27th September 2008!
 
Pixie of key said:
There is all behind extremely fast movement / energy which get quarks and photons expanding all time.
Click to expand...
This is a lie about Le Sage's theory of gravitation written in 1748 which contains no quarks or photons :jaw-dropp!
Le Sage's theory of gravitation is a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.
Click to expand...
 
Expansing space is a lie.

Expanding light is not a lie.

We can check that.

Old light is redshifting, not space!

Love
1038
:)
 
EXPANDING space is a lie.

Expanding light is not a lie.

We can check that.

Old light is redshifting, not space!

We cant see is there expanding space. We cant make science test for or with expanding space. We cant see is there Zeus. We cant make science test for or with Zeus.

We can make science test for light and with light. If light expanding, we can proof that and if not, we can proof also that. So, when i say, light expanding, it is science, even it is wrong. But i think, is not.

Old light is redshifting cosmologys way, because also light expanding.

Love
1038
:)
 
The Man said:
Pixie of key, have you tried that rope experiment yet?


If not, why not?


If so, why haven't you reported what you found?
Click to expand...

I found vacuum phenomena.

It is too much for you.

I wasted time, if i try to explain that for you.

Love
1038
:)
 
Hotspots in an active galactic nucleus

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-10-hotspots-galactic-nucleus.html


The galaxies are created from the inside out versa.

The first galaxies were born centers supermassive objects in a simple manner without pulling force. explosion-like expansion of the Zillions separate a condensation and thus a new item to the center of extreme pressure without tractive power, etc.

the history of the universe, and when to appear in the early days of these supermassive objects smash with each other at a steep angle, they were both asunder released a lot of expansive movement / energy to which the same principles expanding new stars.

love

1038

:)
 
Last edited:
Tuxford - 3 hours ago

"So where is the source of matter for those jets, if not from the source itself??

Notice the early formation of two daughter galaxies at the end of the jets, each with their own core stars forming. This is one mechanism for how galactic clusters can form.

Or, carry on as astronomers, with eyes wide shut.

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-image-supermassive-black-hole-action.html#nRlv

This black hole is some 2.5 billion times the mass of the Sun, and around a thousand times more massive than the black hole at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy.

The jets stretch for around 1.5 million light-years – roughly 15 times the size of the Milky Way."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-hotspots-galactic-nucleus.html#jCp


Love
1038
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom