• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"No Dark Energy" tells logic and observation

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
My own what, you trying to bamboozle me with a non existent chemical con job that you are gullible enough to swallow does not worry but it should make you wonder what you actually are wasting your money on

Look at it this way . I clued you in on a "rediscovery" of paramount importance,
that was made almost 50 years ago. That you had absolutely no knowledge of.
And the only reason you didn't know is that "revolutions" take time.

So, I could have opened a new thread and supplied HUNDREDS of links to this information,
so that ever person in this forum could judge for themselves and open their eyes to a little 'truth' for a change.

But I didn't do that, because then you would not have just suffered embarrassment between us personally,
but that wouold have been total humiliation for you ( and Tag )....publicly.

See what a nice guy I am ?

BUT, be aware...I have other "secrets" to reveal going forward that will embarrass you even more,
if you insist on "challenging" me .
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Look at it this way . I clued you in on a "rediscovery" of paramount importance,
that was made almost 50 years ago. That you had absolutely no knowledge of.
And the only reason you didn't know is that "revolutions" take time.

So, I could have opened a new thread and supplied HUNDREDS of links to this information,
so that ever person in this forum could judge for themselves and open their eyes to a little 'truth' for a change.

But I didn't do that, because then you would not have just suffered embarrassment between us personally,
but that wouold have been total humiliation for you ( and Tag )....publicly.

See what a nice guy I am ?

BUT, be aware...I have other "secrets" to reveal going forward that will embarrass you even more,
if you insist on "challenging" me .

You tried to scam me with the garbage you got scammed with

IT CANNOT EXIST

Get over it

hundreds if links from scam artists,

And i supplied links written by doctors and scientists

And don't threaten me,
 

EYRose

New Member
Only stars are not made of light but made of many different elements under immense pressure, the sum for example is estimated to weigh
1.989 × 10^30 kg and is made mostly of about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium. Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen make up 1.5% and the other 0.5% consists of small amounts of many other elements such as neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur.

Note the iron. When a sun begins making iron if means it is beginning to die. The iron acts as a sink and slows the nuclear reaction.
Yes, on StarTrek, but out in the real universe the latest research is showing stars are just clusters of hydrogen molecules twinkling prettily.
And FYI your bigbang nonsense is based on what you think are billions of tons of iron that all came from nothing.
Methinks you are wrong.
 

EYRose

New Member
Only stars are not made of light but made of many different elements under immense pressure, the sum for example is estimated to weigh
1.989 × 10^30 kg and is made mostly of about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium. Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen make up 1.5% and the other 0.5% consists of small amounts of many other elements such as neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur.

Note the iron. When a sun begins making iron if means it is beginning to die. The iron acts as a sink and slows the nuclear reaction.
You haven't a clue how the sun came to have all that hydrogen and helium and switched itself on so your fairy tale about it dying is from some old scifi movie.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, on StarTrek, but out in the real universe the latest research is showing stars are just clusters of hydrogen molecules twinkling prettily.
And FYI your bigbang nonsense is based on what you think are billions of tons of iron that all came from nothing.
Methinks you are wrong.

Your evidence for these nonsense claims please?

I know of around 30 BB hypothesis, all bases on either observable phenomenon or mathematical accuracy, none mention iron

In fact iron did not exist in this universe until second generation stars began to die.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You haven't a clue how the sun came to have all that hydrogen and helium and switched itself on so your fairy tale about it dying is from some old scifi movie.


Its called gravity. It works.

No, the suns lifespan is calculable based on its content, (from spectrographic observation) and it's size.

But feel free to delusion yourself
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
yep, just another theory.

A hypothesis that is observed and measurable.

And am thinking you need to learn what is meant by "dark energy"

Dark energy is a term that describes an hypothetical form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
You tried to scam me with the garbage you got scammed with

IT CANNOT EXIST

Get over it

hundreds if links from scam artists,

And i supplied links written by doctors and scientists

And don't threaten me,

Yes, of course. I will remind the chronic arthritis I USED to have.
And all the old me that is physically younger today than I was just 2 years ago.

The "revolution" has begun, the age in which this world's "science" will return to it's roots,
and TRUE science once again will be the way of life for the masses.....SPIRITUAL SCIENCE.

Is this not what a "revolution" is ?......a completion of a "cycle", a " full circle", a "revelation" (revealing) ?


Then the little children (physically), playing in the "dirt" ( called "scientist' today ) will know the True way.
The way the little children (spiritually) have always known, as they "play" in the spiritual realms.

This will come about "full force" when your scientist soon discover what the elusive "dark matter" really is.
Only it's not the "matter" they are looking for, but the "dark energy", that holds and binds all matter together
in "formation"...…..and they come to know that said "energy", is what the ancients have always known ,

it's called....."SPIRIT".

So, tread here if you must.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, of course. I will remind the chronic arthritis I USED to have.
And all the old me that is physically younger today than I was just 2 years ago.

The "revolution" has begun, the age in which this world's "science" will return to it's roots,
and TRUE science once again will be the way of life for the masses.....SPIRITUAL SCIENCE.

Is this not what a "revolution" is ?......a completion of a "cycle", a " full circle", a "revelation" (revealing) ?


Then the little children (physically), playing in the "dirt" ( called "scientist' today ) will know the True way.
The way the little children (spiritually) have always known, as they "play" in the spiritual realms.

This will come about "full force" when your scientist soon discover what the elusive "dark matter" really is.
Only it's not the "matter" they are looking for, but the "dark energy", that holds and binds all matter together
in "formation"...…..and they come to know that said "energy", is what the ancients have always known ,

it's called....."SPIRIT".

So, tread here if you must.


Not bad for scam stuff that does not exist. But if still does not exist and you can protest and stomp your foot as much as you want.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
You might recall that GOD made Earth as a ball of water and basic elements?
The water separated into hydrogen and oxygen.
The light hydrogen molecules floated off into space where they are found today - NASA says so.
The oxygen molecules attached to the elements to make the minerals - iron OXIDE etc?
The moon and planets show unmistakable marks of draining running water as well as having ice in shadows.
The moon rings hoolow under impact of redundant space craft because it is just a shell that lost all its water.
As the moon has water in its shadows it is logical proof it is young as if vastly old as big bangers claim or if made from meteorite impact on Earth it would have been so hot that all water would have floated away into space.
The ice giants have never managed to warm up to allow their water to separate off.
The real question is how did the sun get such a mass of hydrogen and helium - if that's really what it's made of?
We have a good answer for that last question. Contrary to what you say, it appears the first element in the universe was hydrogen (though there are thought also to have been some small amounts of helium and lithium). All the others seem to have come from nuclear fusion of hydrogen, in stars.

And your explanation for the presence of free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is not what science thinks. It is thought to arise from the onset of photosynthesis: what is known as the Great Oxygenation Event (also called, rather misleadingly in my view, the Great Oxidation Event). More here: Great Oxidation Event - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Einstein's equation has been used incorrectly because it is badly written. This creates a lot of the problems in physics where questions conflict and others do not have answers.
Personally I believe in an infinate universe that expands at infinite speed. And that our phisical universe we see is not all of it.
If one believes in an infinite universe then Einstein's equation is very simply disproven. You must only exist at the speed of light.

If a=b then if "a" is infinite "b" must be infinite or "a" does not equal "b" and the equation is worthless.

In Einstein's equation In an "infinite expanding universe". Energy would be infinite. If energy is held infinite the "a" must equal "b" lets consider "a" to be energy. We find on the other side of his equation "b" is mass times a "numbered constant" (the speed of light squared). Since mass can be infinite then to hold all "b" infinite it can not be multiplied by a constant. Therefore infinite "a" does not equal "b" or
Energy DOES NOT equal mass times the speed of light squared. His equation in many instances is taken by physicists incorrectly. Yet it is still used today as if it answers everything. That is why the confusion.
So if you are trying to explore the possibilities of an infinite universe, dark matter, or anything that is outside the realm of light functions. Einstein is a wagon going off a cliff. Jump on. Everyone else in physics and mathmatics is. For me I have a better answer and it expands to the infinite. I can explore all possibilities.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Einstein's equation has been used i correctly because it is badly written. This creates a lot of the problems in physics where questions conflict and do not have answers.
Personally I believe in an infinate universe that expands at infinite speed. And that our phisical universe we see is not all of it.
If one believes in an infinite universe then Einstein's equation is very simply disproven
If a=b then if "a" is infinite "b" must be infinite.
In Einstein's equation In an infinite universe. energy would be infinite. If energy is held infinite the "a" must equal "b" lets consider "a" to ne energy. We find on the other side of his equation "b" is mass times a numbered constant (the speed of light squared). Since mass can be infinite then to hold all "b" infinite it can not be multiplied by a constant. Therefore "a" does not equal "b" or
Energy DOES NOT equal mass times the speed of light squared. His equation in many instances is taken by physicists incorrectly. Yet it is still used today as if iy answers everything.
So if you are trying to explore the possibilities of an infinite universe, dark matter, or anything that is outside the realm of light functions. Einstein is a wagon going off a cliff. Jump on. Everyone else in physics amd mathmatics is
What you personally "believe" has no bearing on physics, which is based on evidence from observing nature.

E² = (mc²)² + p²c², which is the full form of Einstein's equation, has been found to agree very well with what we observe. There are in fact no confirmed observations of nature, so far as I know, that are inconsistent with it.

So you have an uphill struggle arguing it is wrong. It works.
 
Last edited:
What you personally "believe" has no bearing on physics, which is based on evidence from observing nature.

E² = (mc²)² + p²c², which is the full form of Einstein's equation, has been found to agree very well with what he observe. There are in fact no confirmed observations of nature, so far as I know, that are inconsistent with it.

So you have an uphill struggle arguing it is wrong. It works.
put f(c) , or within the limits of c ,in front of the equation and i might agree. Nothing like a poorly written equation to trip people up
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
put f(c) in front of the equation and i might agree
That makes no sense, I'm afraid.

If you really want to argue this issue (I'm not sure how serious you are), you will need to come forward with observations of nature that do not fit the equation as I wrote it.
 
That makes no sense, I'm afraid.

If you really want to argue this issue (I'm not sure how serious you are), you will need to come forward with observations of nature that do not fit the equation as I wrote it.
All i have to do is show one insatnce using mathematic logic where "a" does not equal "b"
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
All i have to do is show one insatnce using mathematic logic where "a" does not equal "b"
Wrong. You need to provide observations of nature that do not obey the equation, if you want to invalidate it. That's because Einstein's equation is science: as such its purpose is to model the behaviour of nature.
 
Wrong. You need to provide observations of nature that do not obey the equation, if you want to invalidate it. That's because Einstein's equation is science: as such its purpose is to model the behaviour of nature.
That is not true. Ask "any" university calculus teacher.
All I have to do is use prior proven mathmatics (they may have been proven through your nature) to disprove a mathmaticle eqution like Einstein's or any other. Its basic mathmatics.
Seriously. Go ask a university calculus professor.
You can use proven mathmatics alone yo disprove a given equation.
Im sorry but in all instances "a" must equal "b" if written so or the limits on the equation must be specified. Einstein is almost always due to laziness written by the top physicists and mathematicians as an incorrect equation.
Granted it does work at the speed of light. . if you dont mind the limit. But you can not use the equation to explain anything outside of the speed of light. The equation becomes worthless by its very nature. It only works at the speed of light or by methods that use the speed of light. At other speeds beyond light it is abosolutly worthless and easily disproven.

- Since "a" must be equal to "b"
- Let "a" be infinite (that simple)
- Since the "b" side of the equation contains a constant "c" (the speed of light)
- For all possible energy "a" , "a" does not equal "b"
- The equation is proven wrong.

It should always be referenced as being a function of or within the limits of "c" the speed of light. Thats when it works.

Try to go faster than the speed of light with that equation. I bet mass no longer makes sense to you. Nor distances. Nor time. Nor space. . . You get confused with your mathematics. the equation begins possibilities of being incorrect the minute you leave the speed of light. You have limited yourself and not admitted it in your equation.
F(c) E=MC'2. Is better
Sorry i dont have a mathematical keyboard on this phone. But Einstein's equation is wrong the way he and other people write it is incorrect and wrong.
Its a limited equation
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
That is not true. Ask "any" university calculus teacher.
All I have to do is use prior proven mathmatics (they may have been proven through your nature) to disprove a mathmaticle eqution like Einstein's or any other. Its basic mathmatics.
Seriously. Go ask a university calculus professor.
You can use proven mathmatics alone yo disprove a given equation.
Im sorry but in all instances "a" must equal "b" if written so or the limits on the equation must be specified. Einstein is almost always due to laziness written by the top physicists and mathematicians as an incorrect equation.
Granted it does work at the speed of light. . if you dont mind the limit
Oh that's easily done. We have one on this forum. His name is @Polymath257. Perhaps he will show up and explain.

But I'm afraid what you are saying, about the equation working "at the speed of light", shows you do not understand what the equation means or how to use it. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion now.
 
Top