Atheism

Where did I call Sly a name? I stated a simple fact. Rocks are hard, the sky is blue, and Sly is grasping to illogical answers for questions that perplex him emotionally.

 

you just can't play nice. it's cool.

your post contained several profanities and you completely disrespected his faith in a religion forum.

carry on.

 

It's supposed to be a constant. Which is why the observation of the light speeding up is so perplexing. And requires other explanations _e.g., dark matter) to make it fit with gravity.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci852342,00.html#

No, that's not the thesis - at least not my thesis.

We know what we know, and there are plenty of questions. What I object to is ruling out a possible answer without any basis whatsoever.

Twist your question around a little bit and ask about proof though. If you can't prove everything, does that mean that you can prove nothing?

 

I do not believe that relativeity covers the anomoly of why gravity is not working on the edges of the universe. The density of the universe should still be causing the universe to expand more slowly, not be speeding up.

 

VP, read my response slowly. Gravity works at the edge of the Universe. Again, think of the visible objects in the field of vision as particles in a gel. It is the gel that is moving away from us. It is the medium expanding. The Universe itself is growing. The energy of this expansion is in the volatile soup that makes up the 90% dark matter that we cannot see. It is the very medium of the Universe itself. It is not a break down of gravity as you are trying to describe.

 

then you are flawed as well

you don't believe it because you don't want to believe it.

How is that better than believing because I want to believe? It isn't

 

Oh hell yes there is.

Please direct me to ANY link or proof of what created the universe. Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

What was the trigger for the big bang?

you don't know. There is no scientist alive that knows. There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence for what it was.

 

It's not a matter of the edge expanding or not. It is a matter of it slowing down - which we recently - and shockingly - discovered that it is not - it is accelerating. Gravity as we understand it should be slowing down the expansion - but it's not.

Please note the part where it says nothing in conventional physics can explain such a result.

 

Tharan's analogy sucks like most of his thoughts.

Matter remains suspended in a gel because of adhesion. If the matter in the gel was attracted to the other matter in the gel then the gel would slow down along with the matter.

Try to come up with something better if you can. Given your record, I doubt you can.

 

I know where you got this and I remember this pattern of thought. It is based on measurements of the visible objects we see expanding away from us.

Define "conventional" physics. It is quite well known that the Universe has a mass of which only about 10-12% is visible. The steady state calculations of Einstein's era were based on this 10-12%. We now know better. Increasing the mass of the Universe by ~90% completely reverses the idea of the steady-state Universe due to one component we are familiar with, inertial velocity (there could other reasons we are not familiar with), which is why we currently suspect it will expand "forever" (that word actually has no meaning). But here is the kicker...this is science. And all scientific theories are subject to immediate change should new evidence and understanding arise. The polar opposite of your religion.

Does science have all the answers? No. And it doesn't purport to...unlike your non-evidentiary belief system.