ACG52

Promises, promises...

So you want to ignore all experimental and observational data and write fiction. I'm sorry, but that's not what this site is about. This is a science forum. This means that whatever is posted should have some relationship with reality. This shows that you don't know SR or GR. By no means. I'm perfectly willing to engage in imagining. I imagine that if we could examine photons closely enough, we would discover that they're really infinitesmal pink unicorns, and the reason that light can't go any faster than it can is because the unicorns can't flap their wings fast enough. Prove me wrong. Kaku is a wannabe celebrity. He's just two steps away from being a crank. If he didn't have white hair he'd never have made it on TV. No, everything is not energy. Energy is not a thing, it is a property. And matter cannot move at the speed of light. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas? Again, this is simply nonsensical word salad. Have you ever studied any physics? Even read any popularizations? (aside from Kaku) I wrote all of the above before I read that. Now I realize it was a waste of time, because you can't teach a crackpot anything.

.

I haven't insulted you. Believe me, I would know if I insulted you. If questioning what you post is insulting you, then perhaps you should not post such ignorant garbage uninformed speculation. Because if you do, you will be called on it. So far, it's all been bad math and word salad.

Stationary and located are two different words with different meanings. And I'm unsure what you mean by 'stationed on the surface of our universe'. 'Stationary inside our universe' means the same thing as 'stationed on the surface of our universe? First of all, the photon is not a frame of reference, so your thought experiment of riding the photon is meaningless. Second, you don't double the relative speed. Relativistic velocities don't add like classical velocity. If you have two ships leaving a common point at .99c, heading directly away from each other, when ship 1 measures the velocity of ship 2, they do not find it to be 1.98c, they measure it to be 0.99994949750012625624968435937579c.

Don't think of it as stretching, think of it as more space coming into being between all non-gravitationally bound points.

Stationary? Relative to what?

I said you were 100 percent incorrect. And you are. I don't see that as a personal attack. BTW, Kaku had absolutely nothing to do with the development of string theory. If you're interested in the history of string theory, read The Elegant Universe By Brian Greene. (who did have quite a bit to do with string theory's development).

You don't often see something so completely incorrect. (unless you hang around science forums) The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion.

I don't think you'll find atoms suspended in water. Nor will you find electrons orbiting. Nor is an atom a 'nuclear source'. Your metaphors are faulty.

Why would there be a larger proper velocity in a younger universe? Remember that the BB was not an explosion which imparted a velocity to things.

You've simply repeated your points and said 'I am correct'. You haven't made any argument to show that you're correct. Your first point, that this is a 'special' time between the beginning and the end, ignores that the 'special' time is most of the lifetime of the universe. It is the norm, not the exception. Your second point doesn't seem to have one. Point that is. The BBT says that all points in space will see basically the same universe. Someone on a planet 10 billion lys away will see a universe that looks just like the one we see. Someone ten billion years ago would see something very different. Time matters, place doesn't.

Why? It's not a popularity contest. The points you listed are incorrect.

All of them.

Energy is not a thing. It is a property. Plasma is a hot, ionized gas, it's unlikely that it could contain anything.

Stop with the colors, it just makes you look childish.

It renders the question meaningless, and so there is no need to respond to it.

Global warming means that there is more energy in the system. More energy means there will be more extreme weather events.

Nope, it is right. The universe is all there is. There is no outwards direction. There is no inwards direction. It does get bigger, but not because everything is moving away from a central point, but because everything is moving away from everything else. When we observe the universe, we see it expanding evenly in all directions. If there were a central point to the universe, the only way we would see what we do is if we occupied that central point.

The Big Bang was not an explosion from a central point propelling matter outward in a sphere. The BB is the expansion of every point in space from every other point. Every point in space is 'moving' away from every other point in all directions (outside of gravitationally bound entities). There is no center, and there is no outer edge.

As was pointed out to you on another forum, the energy of an average hurricane is over 200 times the total electrical output of the world. Your 'theory' is based on ignorance of the way hurricanes behave and meteorology in general.

The absurd notion is that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omiscient being running the universe. The universe doesn't need one to run.

So frame dragging doesn't result in the loss of energy from the rotating system?

It used to be they were too far away to resolve. We have better telescopes now.

Gravity Probe B has confirmed that frame dragging is real. Would that generate grav waves?