ZVBXRPL

If a tree falls in a forest, with nobody around, does it make a sound? Yes. If a deaf person is next to a tree in a forest, with nobody else around and it falls on their head, does it kill them? Maybe. Does it make a sound, Yes. The deaf person just could not detect the sound but the sound still exists.

Critical thinking. In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Is the geocentric view science or religion? Today, we have the Big Bang and Expanding Universe. Science or religion. In critical thinking, you always ask the question. Question everything. Georges Lemaitre was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory, he was a Catholic priest. Science or religion? The question was asked during the time of Galileo and so it needs to be asked now, especially with the knowledge that the theory came from the mind of a Catholic priest. Failure to ask the question is failure to use critical thinking. That in itself is a major failure. Big Bang theory puts a finite age on the Universe. It gives the Universe a beginning. If you have the belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works, know all the secrets, then the Universe is no longer mysterious and mind boggling. God takes that mantle. If anyone questions this belief that you understand how the Universe began, how it all works etc you defend your faith. When defending faith logic and reason go out the window, as it is a faith you are defending. The majority of people subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Is the Big Bang theory truth because the majority believe it to be truth? Evidence. If one educated and qualified scientist says "this is evidence that this is truth" and another educated and qualified scientist says "this is not evidence that this is truth" how do you know which scientist is telling the truth? You could go with the majority. In the case of the Big Bang theory, this would mean that you go with the majority and listen to the scientist who says "this is evidence that the Big Bang is truth". Or, you could use critical thinking, think about it yourself and come to your own conclusion. By using critical thinking you can side with EITHER the scientist who says "this is evidence that this is truth" OR side with the scientist who says "this is not evidence that this is truth". You are not blindly following, you are thinking for yourself and making a choice.

I cannot remember the exact day I stopped believing in a "God" and "Heaven" but I know it was around the same time I stopped believing in Father Christmas. My faith would be critical thinking. I question everything and never accept anything as "gospel". I don't care who is providing the information to me, whether it is a family member, a politician, a celebrity, a scientist, a zookeeper or a hobo off the street. I always question them, whatever it is they are saying to me. More often than not the information I receive is false. So a major part of life is searching for truth through BS

An infinite continuus body. A couple of pages back I used a 3D infinite number line as an analogy. Macocosm and microcosm are also infinite, both for the 3D number line and the Continuum Universe.

Instead of cherry picking and multi quoting my post, can you not single quote my entire post and reply to the whole thing in a paragraph or two? Or don't reply at all, one or the other, I don't mind which. If you do then I can reply with my own single quote paragraph or two.

CMB is interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Theory. I would say that CMB is evidence for the theory I am suggesting and evidence against an expanding Universe which in turn is evidence against a Big Bang. If the Universe is expanding and it is space itself that is epanding, then there should be large regions of the Universe that are totally devoid of anything. Only empty space exists in these regions and these regions are those that are expanding, giving the expanding Universe. In the continuum Universe I am suggesting there is NO empty space anywhere in the Universe, so nowhere is there regions of empty space. The fact that CMB is everywhere throughout the observable Universe supports that theory. During the inflation period you get empty space expanding faster than the speed of light. The Universe as we know it is increasing in size to massive proportions. At some point gravity becomes a factor. All the matter in the Universe starts to come under the influence of gravity. If all the matter is evenly distributed throughout the Universe before, during and after the Big Bang and inflation period, the gravity would have equal effect throughout the Universe. You would not get a Universe that is still expanding. If you did, you would not get a uniform CMB, you would a large regions of the Universe without CMB. Having a Big Bang, a Universe that expanded and is still is expanding, CMB being uniform throughout the Universe and gravity being a factor only within galaxies and not between galaxy clusters cannot all be true. There is conflict. If there are large regions of space that are expanding, regions between galaxy clusters, these regions have been expanding since the Big Bang, you would not get CMB in these regions. CMB can only come as a result of something, it cannot come as a result of nothing. If the nothing is actually something, then you cannot have a period of inflation where this "nothing" travelled faster than the speed of light because "something" cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Even though the concept of nothingness travelling faster than the speed of light is a farcical concept in itself, it is a loophole, a way of getting round the "speed limit of the Universe" concept. If you don't have the loophole, you cannot break your own rules. The CMB picture of the Universe would show large regions devoid of anything. The CMB being present throughout the Universe is something you would expect to see in an Infinite Universe, where there is no empty space. There is never nothing, there is always something. CMB is just an example of the something.

How would an expanding Universe that came as a result of the Big Bang lead to the situation you describe, where within galaxy clusters, space itself is no longer expanding, but the space between the clusters is expanding? If gravitational attraction is the reason, why is it limited to within galaxy clusters? Why would it not be uniform throughout the entire Universe? At whatever point in history of the Universe, gravity starts to become a factor, would it not be a factor throughout the whole Universe and cause the whole Universe to stop expanding? Is CMB limited to within galaxy clusters? Or is it present throughout the whole Universe, including between the clusters, part of the expanding space? If the CMB is uniform and spread evenly throughout the whole Universe, does this not conflict with the idea that the Universe is expanding between clusters but not expanding within clusters due to effects of gravity? You say, on one hand there is a model that fits all the evidence, but there are many questions and issues with the model you speak of. The reason it is the standard model is because there is deemed to be a lack of an alternative model, not because the model is correct. It is more, the best we got for now. Because there is only one model, any time a problem arises for that model, fixes are found and added on, but these fixes do not have any evidence to support them. They are an attempt to prevent ending up in a world of science with NO standard model. If at some point the model is proven to be inaccurate, all the fixes to the model become ridiculous and pointless, because they were solutions to problems that didn't exist in the first place.

Why would redshift occur in this Continuum Universe? The current explanation is that the light is shifted to the red, because of doppler effect and expansion of space itself. This is causing the increase in wavelength. If light is travelling as a wave through the Universe, it can lose energy, the longer the distance, the greater this loss of energy can be. The further away distant galaxies are the more energy they lose, the longer the wavelength, the greater the redshift. If the reason for redshift is dopper effect and expanison of space, then why are some galaxies not redshifted? Why do some not have the redshift they should have? if the reason is not doppler effect or expansion of space, but instead that the redshift is caused by the journey itself, then this would account for anomalies. It is not only the distance travelled, loss of energy causing redshift but the environmental factors it encounters on it's journey. One light wave might travel relatively unobstructed by anything and gradually lose energy and arrive at Earth and hit our eyes and telescope having undergone a redshift. Another light wave may have a more arduous journey and gone through a phase where it actually increased in energy for a time and blueshifted, either staying blueshifted or eventually returning to redshift but not at the value expected. When light wave is travelling through a galaxy, the surrounding continuum conditions are different to when it was travelling between galaxies. There is high chance the light wave could gain a little energy after it's long journey. When all light enters our galaxy it may undergo a slight increase in energy. So if you take one light wave that travelled for VERY long time and underwent a large redshift through losing energy, when it enters our galaxy, there will be a slight increase in energy, but not enough for it to be blueshifted. On the otherhand if you take a nearby galaxy, the light wave from that galaxy may undergo small degree of redshift, but nowhere near as much as the distant galaxy. Then when that light wave enters our galaxy and energy increases, the net result is a blueshift. There is a way we could test this, it would involve sending out a spaceship/probe etc with detection equipment as far as possible out beyond the solar system. Measure the redshift/blueshift of a light wave coming from a distant galaxy, on the probe and on Earth and compare the results. If the results vary it shows that the redshift/blueshift phenomena can vary even at relatively short distances, so there is no way you can say that redshift is caused solely by doppler and no reason at all to believe that space is expanding.

I google him and the theory and there are some similarities to the theory I am attempting to explain. He is someone I would like to talk to about my theory and Science in general. I have thought of an excellent way to describe my infinite continuum Universe, using a 3D number line. Infinity ........ 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 ........... Infinity Y and Z axis all go on to infinity too Next, zoom out the number line, so you get 10, 20, 30, 40 etc in all directions, zoom out again so you get 100, 200, 300, 400 etc Zooming out represents the macrocosm, this is infinite. Go back to original number line, zoom in so you get 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc and zoom in again and agin Zooming in represents the microcosm, this is infinite. This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion. The most important concept however, is that it is continuus, there are not 2, 3 or several continuus bodies, there is one continuus body, there is no empty space, anywhere in existence. From our perpective, from where we are on the number line, where we reside in this continuum, we observe the Universe around us. In this continuum Universe there is energy and the energy levels are in a constant state of flux. No energy is ever created or destroyed, energy only transfers either from one location to another location or from microcosm/macrocosm - macrocosm/microcosm. The energy fluctuations are the cause for all motion and all interactions. The motion and interactions depend on the energy level of the region in the continuum we are concerned with and the energy level of the surrounding regions of the continuum. Whether we are zoomed out 1000x or zoomed in 1000x, whether we are at 4 on the number line or 4 billion.

When light travels through space, air and water, the continuum it is travelling through is different in each because the continuum is variable, due to the energy fluctuations. What would happen to the Earth's journey if you filled the galaxy full of water, or full of cement? The continuum has changed. Earth, the Stars and planets travel through space and they don't encounter the same kind of changes that light encounters on it's journey through the Universe.

Go to the chat and can discuss? If not I am logging off for the night.

The evidence doesn't determine who is right, the majority determine what is right. One person might say "this here is evidence that that theory is true", another might say "no, I disagree, there are alternative explanations". The majority rule. An example would be redshift. Why did people first start to say the Universe is expanding? They thought galaxies were moving away from us and each other. Why did they think that? Redshift? What if galaxies moving away and empty space expanding were not the reason for redshift? There were and still are scientists who did not believe redshift was a result of expanding Universe, they are wrong because they are the minority.

It is not the same theory. You cannot use a test done on a different theory and say my theory doesn't work because the test says that other theory didn't work. Conditions of the experiment are not the same because the theories are not the same. When they did they the experiment, what did they believe the Earth to be and how did they believe it moved through the Universe?

Ether has nothing to do with my theory.

If you do not understand what I am saying and don't fully understand the theory I am attempting to explain, how can you assign a problem to it?

There is no problem. The problem being talked about has nothing to do with the theory I have suggested.

You said "how can this continuum have both these properties?". It doesn't just have those 2 properties, it has every property, it is the Universe.

The energy levels throughout the continuum are different. The Universe is a continuum of infinite energy fluctuations. The energy level of the light and the medium it travels through as a wave, the energy level of the Earth and the medium it travels through as a wave are all different. It is not a continuum of one energy level.

You are still talking about a Universe that has empty space and motion of matter. My theory does not involve those 2 concepts. I said about light above and about planets above. All motion in the Universe is wave motion, energy transferring from one location to another, the medium is the continuum of matter. It does not involve matter and empty space moving through empty space and matter..

Light travels as a wave. The medium is the continuum of matter, the continuum is the medium for all motion. The energy levels of the medium, the continuum of matter, at light's level of substructure are the reason for it's speed. If the energy level of the medium changes the speed is affected.

It is 2 totally different concepts. One involves matter and empty space, one involves no empty space and wave motion.

It isn't the same thing. That experiment was to try and detect motion of matter through an ether. That is completely different to my theory. In my theory there is no motion of matter and there is no distinction between the Earth and the surrounding Universe, it is all part of a continuum.

Regarding the Earth moving through a fluid or not moving through a fluid. It doesn't, not in the theory I am suggesting. Light travels through the Universe as a wave. My theory is saying that EVERYTHING travels as a wave. In a continuum the only way for motion to occur is through waves. The energy fluctuations cause the interactions and motion.

In this Universe, there is no distinction between matter and not matter, it is all one continuum. An infinite continuum with infinite amount of energy and energy fluctuations. The energy fluctuations are the cause for everything in the Universe.

It is not solid or liquid because both of those contain empty space. It is a continuum, no empty space. I found a good description of what I mean when I say continuum. "Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed of molecules separated by "empty" space. On a microscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming the materials exist as a continuum, meaning the matter in the body is continuously distributed and fills the entire region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal elements with properties being those of the bulk material."