Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[007]

Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers. On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl

WHAAAA... ??

What does ANY of your reply have to do with ANYTHING I just said? I never said anything about asking questions, or that asking questions was wrong, or school, or SNORTING DRUGS.

Sheeeezuz...

 

[Frannie]

Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers. On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl

WHAAAA... ??

What does ANY of your reply have to do with ANYTHING I just said?

Sheeeezuz...

Triggered professor...……………………

Why would you assume that what you say is relevant to me anyway?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if the universe is expanding from a central spot

It isn't. So there you have it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think the big bang theory is a big bust.

Well, it isn't. It is still the accepted model and is supported by all the evidence.

 

[OldBiologist]

Go to the 8:15 point in this video linked and he explains that pretty well.
“Breaking the vacuum” with petawatt laser

How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then why do galaxies collide?

 

[westwall]

if the universe is expanding from a central spot

It isn't. So there you have it.

It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it. The Singularity was the size of a proton, so yes, it is indeed expanding from a central spot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it.

But, it is not "expanding into space", which is the error in the analogies of explosions you presented and to which you continue to defer.

 

[westwall]

It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it.

But, it is not "expanding into space", which is the error in the analogies of explosions you presented and to which you continue to defer.

Of course it is expanding into space, it is CREATING that space as it expands.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course it is expanding into space,

That's just not accurate. Here, read this:

According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If space is expanding, into what is it expanding?

 

[westwall]

Of course it is expanding into space,

That's just not accurate. Here, read this:

According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If space is expanding, into what is it expanding?

Ummmm, that's pretty much what I said. You need to read my second sentence

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course it is expanding into space,

That's just not accurate. Here, read this:

According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If space is expanding, into what is it expanding?

Ummmm, that's pretty much what I said. You need to read my second sentence

It actually completely contradicts your first sentence, though. And this error by you is what is causing your misunderstanding.

 

[007]

Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers. On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl

WHAAAA... ??

What does ANY of your reply have to do with ANYTHING I just said?

Sheeeezuz...

Triggered professor...……………………

Why would you assume that what you say is relevant to me anyway?

Idiot... b'bye.

 

[westwall]

Of course it is expanding into space,

That's just not accurate. Here, read this:

According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If space is expanding, into what is it expanding?

Ummmm, that's pretty much what I said. You need to read my second sentence

It actually completely contradicts your first sentence, though. And this error by you is what is causing your misunderstanding.

No, it doesn't. The entire Universe spontaneously erupted from a Singularity, as the Universe expands, it creates space at the same time. That is fundamental cosmological theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it doesn't. T

Yes it does, clearly and completely. Your statement:

"Of course it is expanding into space"

...is utterly incorrect, and the article is an attempt to explain why it is incorrect.

This misconception on your part is the source of your errors and of your nonsensical queries, such as to ask how matter moves "perpendicularly to the direction of the explosion".

That query is nonsensical. You think it isn't. And this is due to the fundamental error I have described.

I think i have exhausted all resources at my disposal that would help you understand why you are making a fundamental error. I encourage to to keep reading up on the topic and to ask others. Prehaps you will come to understand your error.

 

[westwall]

No, it doesn't. T

Yes it does, clearly and completely. Your statement:

"Of course it is expanding into space"

...is utterly incorrect, and the article is an attempt to explain why it is incorrect.

This misconception on your part is the source of your errors and of your nonsensical queries, such as to ask how matter moves "perpendicularly to the direction of the explosion".

That query is nonsensical. You think it isn't. And this is due to the fundamental error I have described.

I think i have exhausted all resources at my disposal that would help you understand why you are making a fundamental error. I encourage to to keep reading up on the topic and to ask others. Prehaps you will come to understand your error.

What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.

Which, obviously, is false and is self soothing nonsense, as I am reporting the actual findings of scientists, and what is considered widespread agreement among all cosmologists, physicists, you name it. You, on the other hand, are saying nonsensical things that anyone who takes 5 minutes to read up on and to try to understand this material can see for themselves.

That includes you. So, at this point, There is no excuse for your intransigent and poor behavior.

 

[westwall]

What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.

Which, obviously, is false and is self soothing nonsense, as I am reporting the actual findings of scientists, and what is considered widespread agreement among all cosmologists, physicists, you name it. You, on the other hand, are saying nonsensical things that anyone who takes 5 minutes to read up on and to try to understand this material can see for themselves.

No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences. That pretty much explains your limits.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences

I used a 2D model to explain a few specific traits of occurences in 3D. I reverted to this simpler model in hopes of helping you understand your fundamental errors. To say it is a 2D model explaining 4D occurences is yet another error on your part, as the "fourth dimension" you list is time, which holds perfectly fine in the analogy I described, making it a 3D model, by your very own logic.

Furthermore, the 2D model holds perfectly, when extrapolated to 3D space, insomuch as illustrating how the expansion of space works. That is why scientists, who by the way agree with me and disagree with you to a man, use this analogy to help laymen understand the expansion of space.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space as well.

Imagine you and a friend are holding the ends of a rope, pulled tight. The rope is 1 meter long. Every minute, 1 meter of this rope expands to 2 meters in length. After 1 minute, you and your friend are 2 meters apart. After 2 minutes, you are 4 meters apart. After 3 minutes, you are 8 meters apart.

This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.

 

[westwall]

No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences

I used a 2D model to explain a few specific traits of occurences in 3D. I reverted to this simpler model in hopes of helping you understand your fundamental errors. To say it is a 2D model explaining 4D occurences is yet another error on your part, as the "fourth dimension" you list is time, which holds perfectly fine in the analogy I described, making it a 3D model, by your very own logic.

Furthermore, the 2D model holds perfectly, when extrapolated to 3D space, insomuch as illustrating how the expansion of space works. That is why scientists, who by the way agree with me and disagree with you to a man, use this analogy to help laymen understand the expansion of space.

A 2D model is incapable of addressing the issues.