Message from @jeremy
Discord ID: 633490235480735744
pseudoscience doesnt prove
only philosophy and math proves
science proves ur hypothesis
no
philosophy and math proves lol
wtf
Science improves or degrades confidence in hypothesis
wow
I just said that
lul
Do u not think math proves
lol
<@633301501888036916> who r u quoting?
!mute <@633301501888036916>
@jeremy I don't believe that spacetime can be bent since its defined by material standards. For example, if you measured the distance between two trees to be 12 feet (12 one-foot rulers), then the distance between the trees is defined by the ruler used to measure it. If however the ruler is compressed, then from the perspective of the ruler, the distance (thus space) between the trees got stretched. For this reason, I believe that you can only apparently bend/warp spacetime by warping the matter that defines it. An analogy of this would be like a projector and a projected image. The projector is the material standard that defines the projection (analogous to "spacetime"). If you warp the lens, then you warp the projection and you cannot warp the projection without warping the lens (or the surface it's projected onto).
If every atom in your body is compressed by the same factor, then from your perspective the rest of the universe got stretched.
If the universe appears to be expanding as scientists claim, it could possibly be because atoms are getting smaller across the universe making it appear to us that the unvierse is expanding.
I'm not saying that's the actual case though, but it's a possible explanation.
Another possible explanation is that atoms across the universe are vibrating faster compared to in the past such that light from distant stars (atoms) have lower frequencies compared to stars (atoms) today.
Who r the scientists saying the universe is expanding ?
the distance is calculated based on the Hubble law I think
And in my opinion, the Hubble law is founded purely on assumptions
I don’t even know the Hubble law I’m glad u said the assumption part before I went and looked it up lol
the hubble law assumes that the distance of stars is directly proportional to the redshift of their light
Yeah
Lights in the sky
there are two known sources of redshift: doppler and gravitational. The hubble law ignores the gravitational, yet the same cosmologists who worship the hubble law (thus ignoring gravity) also want to fill in unknowns with more imaginary unknowns such as dark energy? it makes no sense to me
Cosmology isn’t a real science
The math for gravity didn’t work so they invented dark energy or dark matter cause they invented one and the math was still off so they had to make up more imaginary stuff
You know what gets me about dark energy and dark matter, is they went from gravity and skipped over all the other available known forces and went directly to an unknown force.
what about the electromagnetic force, which is 10^40 ish times stronger than gravity?
they totally skipped it
They are making up a story as they go
That’s what happens when ur just telling a story
somehow, the complicated math is authoritatively correct because it's more complicated
that's how I feel about it
if it's not a "stress tensor" it's wrong
So they got good math ?
I don't know