Bufofrog

You are really reaching now and just clinging to your idea. I suggest that you do some reading about the expansion of the universe to help you understand the concept better.

Because there is no possible way it would not "shrink". You really need to think about this instead of digging in your heels. Here is an analogy, if there was a large explosion and you were 1 mile away it would be very loud. If on the other hand when this explosion happened you were in a jet moving close to the speed of sound away from the explosion, when the sound wave passed you at, say 10 miles from the explosion, would it be just as loud as the 1 mile distance?

No, the image would not "expand together with the universe". The distance between us and the galaxy increased, so fewer photons of light from that galaxy reaches our eyes. Isn't it kind of obvious that the farther away from a light you are the dimmer it gets, it doesn't matter that when the light was emitted it was closer to us.

Don't forget that the light from a galaxy that is 13 billion years old was a emitted a lot closer to us than 13 light years!

This is not a theory, this is just an idea you have based on some articles you read on the internet. Here are a few: Each primary universe can spawn numerous smaller, slower-paced sub-universes. This just something that you made up, that has no evidence that anything like this could be true. Upon reaching a saturation point in their internal expansion, they experience a dual explosion. Black holes do not have a saturation point. Black holes don't explode. The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This just something you made up without a shred of evidence. This theory, while still in the realm of speculation, beckons further exploration and challenges our conventional understanding of time, space, and reality. A theory and a speculation are completely different things. Your idea is clearly just an idle speculation with no evidence to back it up, as such it is not science, it is a flight of fancy. Flights of fancy are fun but don't confuse them with science.

Why?

I thought you weren't suppose to bring this up again.

How many times do you need to be told that 1/0 is undefined? 1/0 does not equal infinity. Your math makes no sense. As far as infinity goes, it appears this thread is an infinite loop.

I think there is a language issue. Please tell me what the 'unit' if c is.

It appears this estimate is from one recent paper. His estimate of the age of the universe seems to incorporate a form of the 'tired light' hypothesis. I wouldn't start changing the textbooks quite yet.

I see part of the problem. In the above you did not change the units. The units are m/s, the exponents are 8 and 5.

That may be the most absurd/humorous thing in this whole thread and that is saying something!

How do you think this makes any sense? Do you mean 299,792,458-1 = 299,792,457? Do those 2 different speeds have some sort of deep meaning to you? Do you realize that dark energy and dark matter are completely different things? Your entire presentation seems devoid of logic and reason. You keeps say things like, "The mathematical proof for having M(c)=-M(c-1) is correct". However you have not shown the proof or derived it, you just keep saying you think it is correct, when in fact it make no mathematical sense.

Am I to assume that comments means you are acknowledging that zero does occur in physics?

Hmm, if there is an particle at rest in my frame it has 0 kinetic energy. That seems like a 0 in physics to me.

What is a "fonction of masse relative"?

Because the conclusion is that mass cannot move at the speed of light. Trying to make a mass go the speed of light is absurd and the infinity result shows the absurdity quite clearly.

Dividing both sides by M we get c = c-1. Subtracting c from both sides we get 0 = -1. I am seeing a problem here...

The right side of the equation doesn't yield the proper units for energy, so it can't be correct.

In fairness, I think the first part of your statement is also "off the deep end" since that is firmly in the realm of science fiction. This does not seem like philosophy this seems like science fiction. I think this would be a better fit in Speculations or The Lounge sections

Ironically enough, that obviously did happen. Modern humans and Homo erectus were contemporaries. Homo erectus and Homo sapiens lived as 2 separate species for at least 100,000 years. The last Homo erectus died between 50 and 100 thousand years ago.

Your argument about extinction has one major flaw, it's wrong.

You really really confused. It is really simple; the class of mammals are not extinct because there mammals living, the species Homo erectus is extinct because there are none of them that are alive. If you can't understand this I guess it's alright it should not affect your everyday life.

The religion section is not for preaching it is for discussing religion.

No.