Strange

It might have been better as an opening, with the rest of the book showing why the poet is wrong. But it was probably just that the writer thought he should end with an open-ended and (possibly) inspiring thought.

They move out of it. Our view of the universe is not shrinking. Stop posting ignorant crap.

Please stop posting ignorant crap.

So despite admitting to being ignorant of schoolboy physics, you think you can overthrow relativity. Breathtaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect There are other experiments that disprove an aether that is dragged with the Earth, partly dragged with the Earth, pulled around by invisible pink unicorns, and so on. Because you made up a fake scenario with no relationship to relativity theory. I guess you can "disprove" any theory with a sufficiently imaginative lie. Let me have a go. Quantum theory is wrong because it says photons are the size of ostrich eggs but laser pointers have a very tiny beam of light. Easy! I suspect it might be the only book he has read.

What is wrong with you? Why can you not just answer a few simple questions? I didn't ask what it was, I asked where it came from: source / citation / reference / link ... I know (anyone over the age of 12 knows) that joules per second is watts. What I asked was: How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)? Or did you just ignore the rules of science and mathematics and just assume that you could magically convert joules to watts? Why not do it now? You claim to have done these calculations: show us. So how did you calculate 32315 ? You just say: But, again, if I convert 1200kg to energy (note: energy, not power) I get about 1020 joules. That is, 1 followed by 20 zeroes. That is not 32315. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1200+kg+*+c%5E2 So, it seems that in every single step in your "calculation" you make some sort of error (like, not doing the claimed calculation at all) and yet you still think the results are meaningful. p.s. can I suggest that you use some sort of online resource like Wolfram Alpha to do your calculations in future. It will make sure that (a) the numbers are correct and (b) you get the right units (e.g. joules not watts).

Please answer the questions in post 61

Just start by explaining the calculations you have done so far. STOP adding new stuff.

There is never anything written in stone in science. But these are our best theories (not guesses) based on the available evidence.

Why do you need a few days? You claim you have already done the calculations. Just show us (see post 61). Or do you admit you were just making the numbers up and haven't actually calculated anything?

Not as offensive as Randolpin's post.

And lots of examples of people who are one or the other or neither. No, you said that people who were not religious were not human and were incompatible with the world. That is a pretty offensive comment.

You can't. No one controls how language develops. It is determined by its users. And which English, anyway? There are hundreds (probably thousands) of dialects - they are all different and some of them are mutually incomprehensible!

I am going to ask you the same questions again. Please answer them. 1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from? 2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc2 gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)? 3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy. So, if we take your 5.972 x 1024 kg and multiply by c2 we get 5.367 x 1041 joules. That is 5367 followed by 38 zeroes. This does not appear anywhere in your calculation. 4. Where does the number "44421698952483" come from? How did you calculate that? New Question 4a. 1/44421698952483 = 2.25 x 10-14. Why is your result different from this? 5. How exactly do you get 20547 watts? For comparison, if I multiply 2032 kg by c2, I get 1.862 x 1020 joules. This is (a) much bigger than your number and (b) joules not watts. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2032+kg+*+c%5E2 6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334" ? As none of your "calculations" actually make sense, I think you are pulling numbers out of thin air and just pretending you have calculated them.

Why microseconds? (A day is not 1 millionth of a year) And even if microseconds, it is still wrong. Now: Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula.

As you say this could be any unit of time, so why not take the number of seconds in a day and do the same thing. Then you get: 86400.03279 86400.02085 So by the same logic, the satellite is 0.012 seconds per day faster. Which is (a) different and (b) wrong. That is the problem when you can't do basic maths and have to invent numbers to make it look like your "equation" works. It turns out that your own numbers prove you lied about being able to calculate this.

So people who are not religious are not human? That way lies a path to evil. In what way are people who have lost their religion incompatible with the world? There seem to be many happy and successful people in this group. And what about people who never had any religion? Are they also incompatible with the world?

There is no wire between the sender and the receiver (the fact there might be wire within each is irrelevant as that is not what changed in the transition from telegraph to radio communication). Also, you can't expect language (any language) to be precise in its formation of words. (As someone said: "there is no logic in etymological".)

These are valid, and sensible, questions! That was the expected scenario until recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce However, the discovery that expansion is accelerating suggests that won't happen. On the other hand, we don't really know enough about "dark energy" to be sure.

Most things in the universe are not in containers. The Sun is not in a container. Neither are any other stars (that we know of). The Earth is not in a container (not any other planets. The solar system is cont in a container. The galaxy is not in a container. Galaxy clusters are not in a container. The gas in between is not in a container. But feel free to redefine "container" so that you are right ...

Ah, no. This is a very important point. It is the universe itself that expanded, not the matter in it. The universe has always been completely full of matter. That matter has cooled and got less dense as the universe expands.

STOP posting new stuff and answer some questions! How do you calculate this result? Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula.

So in your opinion it is impossible and therefore life doesn't exist. So it is not worth doing any more research on the subject. Is that about it?

The expansion is isotropic. And it is centered on us! The reason for that is because everything is moving away from everything else, and so wherever you are it will look as if everything is moving away from you isotropically. There is then a circumference of the observable universe (all the stuff that we can see because there has been enough time for its light to reach us). But the whole universe beyond that may be infinite or it maybe finite (but probably with no edge or boundary). The place where the bag bang "happened" is, well, everywhere. Perhaps the easiest way to understand that is to think of time running backwards. The positions of our galaxy, and another galaxy a billion light years to the left, and another galaxy 10 billion light years to the right will eventually all end up adjacent to one another and then all in the same place. So everywhere is that "central location".

Are you really suggesting that Trump is not an almost pathological liar? http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/barely-true/

Things move out of our observable universe all the time.