ACG52

I'd say it was a thread started by a someone who doesn't understand relativity, but thinks he does and wishes to indulge his ego. (All cranks who don't understand relativity think they do).

No.

Nope.

So It's about the math, but you don't know the math, so you simply serve word salad. But you don't understand relativity, and therefore have been totally unable to come up with any kind of explanation.

No.

I've read that hypothesis before, you got it pretty right. The issue I have with that idea is if the mass/energy of the BH creates another universe, what keeps the BH's gravitational field going in this universe?

Nonsensical word salad.

Which have still never been detected. A lot of word salad, and right off the bat it doesn't conform to observed reality. This all belongs in speculations. At best.

Except that we don't see any such magnetically charged particles.

Faith is belief without evidence. There is no rational evidence against invisible blue unicorns being responsible for the universe's existance. (Those who believe the universe to be controlled by pink unicorns are heretics)

Remember this is the religion forum, where any woo-woo goes.

None of that word salad made any sense at all.

This is the religion forum, so I'd imagine that there isn't much which is to silly to post here, but much doesn't mean all, and the preceeding post is falls into that category.

So you made up some simple nonsense that can be understood and think that's an accomplishment?

Sorry, couldn't get by this. It seems to go downhill from there. BTW, paragraphs would help. Not in the content, but certainly in the reading.

Perhaps I misunderstood your explanation. The observer on the ground would see the moving clock as running slower. The observer on the ship would see the earth clock as running slower. They would both see their own clock as running normally.. Given that the earth clock remains 'stationary' (i.e. has no accelerations applied to it), then when the earth clock and the moving clock are brought into the same reference frame and compared, less time will have elapsed for the moving clock.

Sorry, but that's pretty much completely incorrect. Time dilation is not an illusion caused by differing velocities. It's not a question of how long does it take an image to catch up with the traveler. Observers in motion relative to each other will measure the other's time as different than their own. They will always measure their own time as normal, just as they will always measure the speed of light to be the same in their own frame.

I can't say that omnibenevolent is any property I've ever heard ascribed to doG.

Do you think that the object at 2 lys and 3 years ago is a seperate and distinct object from the one at 2 lys and 2 years ago?

It's still there, but now it's one year in our past, and we can't observe our own past from the present. That's because the temporal dimension appear to have only one degree of freedom, forward in time.

When cosmologist say that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, they mean it is expanding faster now than it was in the past. And yes, all velocity is relative, but the rate of expansion is not the same as movement through space. Expansion is just that, the creation of more space between all non-gravitationally bound objects. The more space there is between objects, the more space is created and so the farther an object is, the faster the object appears to be moving away. At a certain distance, space is being created faster than light can travel through it, and so we say that it's expanding faster than light. But nothing is actually moving through space faster than light. Your last sentence is just completely wrong.

But we already did observe it one year ago. We observed it, so it exists.

Because the speed of light is invarient in all frames.

Yes. And when those inside the spaceship measure the spead of the emitted light, they find it to be c.

I pick the one which does a better, more accurate job of describing how the physical universe works. To judge which one that is, I look at predictions each make and then compare them to the result of observation and experiment. Cranks chant the 'original idea' mantra, but never seem concerned with 'educated idea'.