Bufofrog

There is no doubt the universe is expanding the question what exactly the rate is. The more interesting question is why the to methods give a differ number.

Do you have any evidence to support that, or does that just seem right to you?

We are trying to tell you that the universe started off from an unimaginably small, hot and dense point. There was not an explosion, but an expansion of that point. Every part of the universe was expanding. Mass was not expanding, the universe was expanding. There was no mass in the early universe, atoms formed around 370,000 years after the big bang. The universe is still expanding. All the non-gravitationally bound galaxies are move away from each other. The are all moving away from each other because the universe is expanding. The galaxies are not moving away from some point in space. Again the universe is not expanding away from a point in space. That would be easy to determine from the velocity of the galaxies. The galaxies are all moving away from each other. It is like, not exactly, but like a raisin bread loaf rising as it is cooked, all of the rasins move away from each other and there is no void in the middle of the loaf. As the universe expands it cools. Since every point in the universe is expanding the entire universe is cooling not just the nonexistent center. If there were this void that you propose, that would not support the big bang theory that would disprove it! The poster brought up a cloud as an analogy. The universe is not a cloud and it is not a raisin loaf.

The expanding universe is why the whole universe is cooling. That is why there is background microwave radiation.

Your arm pit is concave so the bar wears to a convex shape,

Yes, you will forget stuff. For instance you might forget that astrology is not astronomy.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you trying to imply the future will be less than ideal?

Which do you think and why?

I find it quite believable and quite unremarkable.

You got it.

This is different than the normal definition of a scalar in science. A Vector has magnitude and direction, a Scalar has magnitude only.

OK, I guess we're done. Good discussion.

That is not discussing, that is a video. It seems like you are not getting this whole discussion forum concept...

Super, why don't you discuss?

So are you saying monkeys with prehensile tails at a dinner party would have to face away from the table to reach the tureen of soup?

Then discuss it already !

As would I!

The headlines are blaring, "Scientists Say Betelgeuse On The Brink Of Exploding!!" The headlines are correct, Betelgeuse may go supernova within the next 100,000 to 200,000 years. I am guessing that the majority of the people reading that headline have a different definition of 'on the brink' than the scientist.

That is the way I would do it, and it is the way I have done it. Looks good to me IOW. The biggest advantage is simple and efficient.

Wow, this post is giving me deja vu!

Hope everyone had a Merry Solstace!

New ideas are fine. Fanciful ideas are also fine, just don't expect people accept your fanciful ideas that are unevidenced.

Good point.

I'm afraid leapyear is no longer with us......

I don't want to watch the video. Why not discuss your idea?