Menan

I am asking the question to point out that we currently have no definitive data to say that either was or is wrong or right. Einstein said that the Universe was not expanding and because of gravity would collapse on itself, Hubble then presented evidence that the Universe was expanding. Now the evidence indicates not only that expansion is happening but that it's rate of expansion is actually increasing, due to an unseen energy force termed dark matter and or energy, which by the way to make a math model work requires that 85 percent of the Universe is missing. The fact is that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of the Universe now, then when the Earth was at it's center. The fact is that 85 percent of the Universe is not missing, everything is right where it belongs and humanity has no greater factual understanding of where it came from or how it fits into the Universe then an amoeba. So is 85 percent of the Universe missing? or we do not have a clue? Einstein's static universe was actually no more wrong or right then what we think we see now, as what we see now is that 85 percent of the Universe is missing. Do you believe that 85 percent of the Universe is missing? I did not misrepresent anything that Einstein said, you just will not accept that your defacto math God figure was WRONG. But wait, he can't have really been wrong, because that would imply that the truth is known now, and it isn't

Best guess and a mathematical model that doesn't work because there is 85 percent too little material That equals less than nothing

You said "Einstein intended to make the Universe static" The Universe is what it is, no human can make it anything. This is entirely senseless PS. Neither dark matter or dark energy is explained, in fact it only exist to fill a void in an equation that may well be entirely wrong

I do not have to show you anything, you called me a fraud for stating the truth. You prove what you said? Good luck with that! PS. Unlike you playing my game, I will not play yours. Next

How am I a fraud for stating Einstein's mistake? You are reacting like a religious zealot who has had their God insulted. Fact, Einstein was a man, who made mistakes. Think you can prove me wrong? TRY...……..……..YOU WILL FAIL

So if you believe Hubble, and you accept that Einstein was wrong, why do you fight that Einstein was right? Make sense people, and bye the way Einstein DID CERTAINLY PREDICT THAT the gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. https://www.space.com/31055-removing-cosmological-constant-was-the-blunder.html One of the early implications is that because all matter attracts all other matter, a static universe would not long remain static. The gravitational attraction would cause all matter to collapse into a single point. And even if one did not start with a static universe, the mass distribution of the universe should evolve. I am not anti science, I am just being rational, you believe in your God, the false prophet Einstein.

When they send a monkey into space and it comes back alive 100 years later with a half eaten banana let me know It's a fact that you believe it's a fact, just like Einstein believed that the Universe was going to collapse on itself in a big crunch

I want to say yes, because he believed that the Universe was a static bubble or something, which Hubble proved him wrong on. However nothing Hubble said is factual either as the math that proves what the universe is doing doesn't add up. That said since math can not be wrong, then our understanding of the universe may be the error. Again you know that I am wrong, know how the universe began and where it's going but you still can't figure out what's in my pocket and we are actually touching in Universal terms

The only thing that slows a clock is a power outage...………………. Astronauts come back to Earth a portion of a second younger than if they did not go to space Unprovable, just like dark matter, but you will describe it as though it is real anyway

There is no answer to that question that can be applied to dogs and wolves. No dog chooses a mate of any sub group, they will mate with any other dog or wolf all the same, thus sub speciation isimpossible

Before you try to explain the difference between species and subspecies to me even though I clearly know I need for you to explain how a French Bulldog male which has no ability to mount and mate with a female, can be a subspecies of the grey wolf without the ability to reproduce? (Hint, it's a severely mutated grey wolf) Clearly all mammal subspecies would need the ability to both breed and to be able to select a suitable mate of the same subspecies to reproduce with. The French Bulldog is 100 percent dependent on human intervention to breed, furthermore no species of dog even recognizes that any dog breed exist, they will readily mate with any other dog breed producing mutts because they do not see themselves as a species or subspecies, in fact modern dogs will readily breed with wolves and coyotes as well. Why, because that is what they are.

Actually 900 miles of ice melted from 20000 to 10000 years ago. The weather channel was not there taking measurements either, so the graph is retard nonsense I agree that reputable scientist say that humans are adding to climate change. I also know that none of them have any verifiable evidence. They always end up showing pollution, which is NOT climate change, it's pollution Well there you go again babbling about the year 1000, and forgetting that from 20000 years ago till 10000 years ago 900 miles of north south glaciation melted in North America. Now clowns measure a few feet a year and scream that we are all going to die. The god damn glaciers have been melting for 20,000 years, and the rate of melt has SLOWED massively at present

It's true, not because I am necessarily more intelligent than the next guy, though I clearly am more intelligent than most, but because I know when to weigh in, and when not. Bye the way, all of the moderators notes were also irrelevant to the discussion. See!

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere. However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged. Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate. 20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice. Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit. So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years. Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years Luv ya kids

No problem https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/quantum-entanglement-camera No one understands entanglement...……………..All that can be understood are the results. You also do not understand what is in my left pants pocket, but probably know everything about the beginning of time. Kind of illogical, don't you agree?