Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No i don't, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
Neat!How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.
I’m having too much fun watching you stuck explaining things in 2D in a 27D universe.Neat!How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.You think there’s only 3 dimensions.
Now, this is where you explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing, specifically.
Do you think the big bang has a "blast direction", in three dimensional space? You can start there.
In other words, you have no idea what we are talking about and don't know anything about this topic. And that's fine. Maybe you will learn something.I’m having too much fun watching you stuck explaining things in 2D in a 27D universe.Neat!How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!No, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.
Now, this is where you explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing, specifically.
Do you think the big bang has a "blast direction", in three dimensional space? You can start there.
I’m busted! Carry on with lectures on the beginning of time and it’s 3D physics.In other words, you have no idea what we are talking about and don't know anything about this topic. And that's fine. Maybe you will learn something.I’m having too much fun watching you stuck explaining things in 2D in a 27D universe.Neat!How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!
Now, this is where you explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing, specifically.
Do you think the big bang has a "blast direction", in three dimensional space? You can start there.
Actually, we are talking about time since inflation and today. And about the concept that there is no "blast direction" of the inflationary event in 3D space.I’m busted! Carry on with lectures on the beginning of time and it’s 3D physics.In other words, you have no idea what we are talking about and don't know anything about this topic. And that's fine. Maybe you will learn something.I’m having too much fun watching you stuck explaining things in 2D in a 27D universe.Neat!How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.Correct, in this context, as we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.
Now, this is where you explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing, specifically.
Do you think the big bang has a "blast direction", in three dimensional space? You can start there.
The fundamental error being made here is a result of intuition failing us. Our space doesn't "expand into" anything. That is very hard for us to understand.
You cannot trace the big bang back to a point in our space. You cannot pick an object and say it is moving in the "blast direction", then trace its history back to the "location" of the big bang.
Not this one. This one did not explode "into" space, like the explosions you are describing. It is space.Correct, but explosions all behave the same.
The problem with the Universe is that no one knows what they are looking at, or where it came from or where it is going or what part we play in it and what we are. This renders everything a guess including any mathematics because all the variables are unknown. A solution to a problem that has no parts is not possible, the big bang is the starting point and is also pure conjecture.The sound of settled science strikes again.
We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.
“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.
“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.
How the Universe Stopped Making Sense
And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.Also, the expansion itself created matter, it appears. And it may have done so without any energy expense, as the other things it created impart negative energy unto our universe. The net energy of our universe may be zero.
No. It was created by the expansion of space, in the theory we are discussing.So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.
There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there. I do find it comical for any human to seriously say that matter just created itself because the big bang just felt like creating a universe. There is no theory that allows even a single atom to be created from nothing, so one comes back to particle fluctuationsNo. It was created by the expansion of space, in the theory we are discussing.So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.
He doesn’t know what particle fluctuations means.There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there. I do find it comical for any human to seriously say that matter just created itself because the big bang just felt like creating a universe. There is no theory that allows even a single atom to be created from nothing, so one comes back to particle fluctuationsNo. It was created by the expansion of space, in the theory we are discussing.So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.
I don't disagree entirely. There is, however, good reason to assume it was , at the very least, compacted into something unrecognizable and beyond our knowledge of the laws of physics. And expansion would then had to have happened, by what we know. So the meat of the big bang theory still holds, in any event.There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there.
