jasondoege

No i said or find somewhere else. OR. OR. OR. i even pointed that out already Dont close the thread just leave it alone. you guys are spending a considerable amount of time ive begged you to stop doing. I wonder why??? Its funny because the gibberish you guys keep coming up with google cant find anything on the entire web that contains it. whys that?

Yes, kinetic energy is something a body possesses by being in motion. A body in motion that comes into contact with another body has something called force.

dont quote me and cut off the blatant points ive made about the same topic. You guys need to drop this now you have almost zero grey matter.

because everybody should know the only way weve been able to detect it is by its "gravitational" effect. Link me to one professional study that shows them firing empty space at things or shows its something theyve had to thrust through with things like voyager. It does not interact with matter in any other way than what i just showed you. this is kindergarden level stuff. what is a mechanical movement vector? is it something nanobots do lmao

lmao. Please guys just drop it im begging you

That dude even just linked me to gibberish that says dark matter has kinetic energy. do they need to walk for me to talk to them like youre already saying im doing???? Look guys seriously you have no desire to analyze and critique this hypothesis in any meaningful constructive way so just drop it please.

These dolphins have consistently shown me repeatedly they lack moderate to advanced logic skills and so have suffered brain damage in the critical thinking area of the brain from being a dolphin their whole life. Its clear to me Im going to have to search long and wide to find a special dolphin that hasnt been affected by this issue.

All you guys have done is possibly show that one conclusion i drew from my hypothesis is incorrect. If you say outright that you know 100% for sure that initial matter could not have been created this way and point out details that show why not that dont just include because cmbr requires more than that, then i will believe you and remove that conclusion. But if you cannot see the merit or test ability of the original hypothesis i need to look elsewhere because i am not getting the positive interaction i was looking for that would even include showing the crux of my theory has to be false. I guess you cant see your extremely negative predilections towards this just based on my position as an outsider which i pointed out Einstein even was and had to deal with this same crap.

i guess youre saying our universe is a donut and has a center then. and even though this absurd non-fact has no bearing on the crux of my hypothesis lets go ahead and say it invalidates it. Ive been at home the whole time. And guess what i said id find someone else to do it OR go somewhere else. God you people are so dumb you cant even understand or speak basic english

Dude just drop it. Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

I didnt get insulted when you tried to explain things thats part of the reason im here and its something ive been begging you guys to do. I got insulted when you keep referring to my level of accomplishments in the field as proof that what i had to offer was invalid. Thanks for giving me another word for something i refer to and even answered in my hypothesis. Im using this forum to see if i understand astrophysics well enough for my hypothesis to be valid or to drop it if someone shows me i dont and its not. You Simply saying i dont therefore it isnt isnt adding any value to the conversation. If you do not have anything specific youd wish to add then just go on about your business elsewhere. You seem to have an odd desire to have me believe youve discredited my hypothesis thats not based on anything specific that i can an only assume is because of ulterior motives regarding it which im just going to add as another feather in my cap. i feel for you bro. Its apparent dealing with someone like me is frustrating for you and a shot to your ego about matters on this subject but you need to get over it. You need to fix how you approach information sharing and debate about whats shared because youre slapping science and open discourse in the face with that. And guess what Einstien was not a physics expert when he revolutionized our understanding of it. He was a mathematician who people regularly tried to discredit that we know we were all very lucky to have an expert even consider and test his ideas.

Maybe you pointed out some detail that invalidates that conclusion i drew from it, id have to look into it. But like i said in the post you just replied to it does not invalidate my hypothesis. And once again you insult my knowledge of physics in order to discredit any idea have have regarding it. Its like some weird itch specialists have because they cant accept the fact that an outsider can actually have a positive effect on their field. Im gonna rest for now. Im assuming by your comments that you think a small section and not the crux of my hypothesis is false and therefore the whole thing is and that you know how smart i am because you just happen to be that smart and from my level of intelligence youve gleaned that somehow im so dumb that i cant even guess things correctly so its not worth talking to me about my ideas so please stop doing so.

The likelyhood is random and symmetrical based on what ive already presented you. I have no idea what those things are, like i said i am completely removed from the scientific community and its why im on this forum hoping to talk to people like you that arent. Instead of pointing them out feel free to point out details of them that invalidate parts of my theory including the crux of it. Please say in more detail what that impossibility im describing is. And please realize this applies to just one conclusion of my hypothesis and does not invalidate it if its false.

No take your time and think about it. If matter/anti-matter pairs were produced in random directions and separated by spatial expansion you would have randomly defined areas with only matter or anti-matter present in them after the dominant member annihilated its opposite due to their attraction to one another and close proximity. Random means random and that directly correlates to the areas of space dominated by one or the other except by saying that the produced result would be symmetrical and if somehow this big bang descriptive detail of my hypothesis is wrong it does not invalidate my idea. its only a conclusion from it not the crux of it.

I explain that in my hypothesis. Randomly dominant matter and anti matter areas of the universe were created by infinite or extremely high spatial expansion that was present due to the initial absence of matter. as far as im aware quantum foam is randomly directed so it would produce this result Thank you for at least trying at this point

Whatever man i listened to every single instance of errors that people pointed out and even told you how i did so. you just even referred to the one i brought up about about dark energy and spatial expansion that someone pointed out that i already corrected and presented to you. Very little to work with, another vague insult. just drop it man youre not interested in it let it go. An intelligent person would consider the hypothesis's merit and apply his knowledge on the subject to refine or reject it. youre not doing that at all.

It sounds like you have plenty of knowledge that would be beneficial in determining if this hypothesis is conceptually feasable or not. But for some reason you do not have the desire to do so. So please let other people fill that void and ill go play some beat saber while i wait for them to do so and we can stop wasting each others time with one way insults. Im looking for partners in this because if its true it would be monumental. If you arent interested being one of those then thats that.

To be even more clear i have an iq of 150. I have a fresh mind that hasnt been solely instructed what to learn and what absolutely has to be true. I used its creative strength to add fresh new of eyes and ideas to a field that obviously needs help. Ive learned constantly over my life how to think. you want to deal more with people who cant answer these questions that have exhausted their minds only learning what to think. I asked you to point out any more inconsistencies in this long list you claimed existed. you failed to do so. Ill work on generating those mathematics but it would be nice if people in this forum took a moment and told me if im just wasting my time doing so.

Thats what i thought. "your idea cant be true because youre dumb" Brilliant. Thanks man lets let other people talk about it or ill try to find somewhere else that has them.

Well shoot, i guess because its a possibility with widely confirmed data supporting it i shouldnt think about it and use it to create new a new hypothesis that answers why it COULD be happening and the major questions astro phsyics is facing.

i edited my comment and added the final conclusion and statement of the description of the paper. "If an evolution of the dark energy equation of state is allowed, the data suggest a dark energy density increasing with time." you are either saying this is not true, and i shouldnt trust nasa. Or you are saying you have more information that you have to present that has nothing to do with this paper but brought it up simultaneously with it for no reason. This is just another time youve tried to discredit my thoughts by insulting my intellect about stuff you were wrong about.

Ill take my time to do it. If you cant take the time to point out a logical inconsistency it presents to my hypothesis then just drop it. Im looking for like minds that care about knowledge and want to discover it, share it, and help others refine it. and its just loading forever atm it loaded. I just had to read the general description to understand it was exactly what i was talking about. "If an evolution of the dark energy equation of state is allowed, the data suggest a dark energy density increasing with time."

well thats a bummer, i cant even understand dumbed down descriptions. could you grant me a bit of clarity?

Have those stats been invalidated based on nasas chandra results? are you saying i cant refer to nasa and shouldnt think up new ideas based on their findings? no you dont need to show me how a matter only universe can expand. a seperate possibility does not invalidate my choice of one in a smaller section of my hypothesis as far as im aware a matter only universe could expand but the resulting mass formations would just be black holes, which according to my hypothesis counter expansion to a diminishing degree

i dont know what this is referring to i am not part of the scientific community my life is much more complex and dynamic than being an extreme expert in one field has to offer. If anything you posted in that invalidates any statements ive made then point it out please