(continued...)
Please explain what you think would annihilate each other, and exactly why. Your claim doesn't seem to be connected to anything I wrote there in the paragraph you quoted.
What is wrong with you, did you lose your memory or what matter and antimatter annihilate each other.
I already know that's your opinion. We've covered that. That's why I asked you to point to any actual flaws in my explanation. Can you do that, or not? And by actual flaws I mean show me where "my" theory doesn't work, or gives incorrect answers when checked against real-world results, or whatever. Show how it is inconsistent with "reality" in some way.
It's not an opinion it's a fact, what exactly you have done in the last 100 years, you created some idiotic hypotheses which you have no way to prove and others that are misinterpreted, plus there are so many holes in them, when people ask about these holes, physicists get angry just because you asked them, and yet they cannot explain them.
Second, someone like you who is taught by that same doctrine is not qualified to see where are thes eholes, since you think the same as the reast of religious zealots on universities and in ciorporate science.
Why is it never zero? Explain what is wrong with my explanation of atomic energies - i.e. respond to the actual detail in the paragraph you quoted in order to post this one-line response. Is it that you believe that an atom contains the magical "pure energy substance"? Where can that substance be found in the atom, exactly? How does it behave?
Your delusional hypothesis that energy is number if energy was really a number, it would be merely be and abstract and not real in the world.
My claim is that energy only exists as a number in your head. Or, rather, that "pure energy" substance that you imagine in your head is more properly just a number that somebody made up and found to be useful. Since then, people have tried to attach useful mental images to that number, and you're the inheritor of a common-enough mental image.
Again you are talking about things that do not exist ina real world-numbers do not exist in a real world, energy does exist in a real world, sure the definition of energy is the ability to do work, but the fact is energy is so much more than that.
Woah. Stop there. Is energy a substance, or a form of activity? Because those two things sound pretty different from one another.
Both actually, if there is no energy there is no activity, there is no work to be done.
What does a "form of activity" look like in the real world? How can one distinguish energy as a form of activity as distinct from any other form of activity?
Go on electric chair and see for yourself, electricity is one example.
Those are some very general statements that need unpacking. I notice that some of your posts above talk about experiments in relativity - mostly historical ones - but from what I've read of those posts there are quite a few misinterpretations right there on the part of whoever was the author there.
It's a fact, why do you keep insisting that your interpretations are correct if I already gave example in previous post why space is static and 100% empty and cannot and does not change under the influence of gravity.
That's one of many misinterpretations.
Lies, damn lies and statistics, hey?
I disagree with you that it's possible to prove anything with mathematics. For example, it's impossible to prove a statement like 1+1=3 if we accept just a few common-sense axioms about arithmetic - axioms that all scientists and statisticians routinely accept, by the way.
That's a pur elie I had professot of mathematics who has actually showed you can prove anything you want with mathematics, one of the examples he gave me was 2+2=5, he showed me that one example.
Forget about statistics, I have seen enoug ina real life how can statistics be misused for anyone to prove anything.
You already sound religious. You mostly just declare that certain things are bullshit and 100% wrong, but you don't make an argument to show why they are wrong. You sound like you're preaching to some kind of presumed audience. Who are they?
Now, you sound religious, because you just love your mathematics and you don't take into account all those holes and misinterpretations.
They are 100% wrong, if you have just one puzzle that doesn't add up, than the entire hypothesis falls apart, you need to get real and admit the fact that we would never truly know how exactly universe was created, withour some real evidences-plus with correct interpretations.
If you cannot see the whole picture, only vastly small part of that picture, than interpretation of even what you see is wrong, since you cannot see the whole picture-that's fact, plus there is a problem with human perception and senses, whcih are also so much limited-and you think matehamtics will fill the holes, no it does not, it only creates more traps and more mistakes/errors, until you end up nowhere, creating totally unprovable hypotheses.
Imagine you're an ant crawling along the surface of a balloon as it is being blown up. The "world" you're aware of as the ant is confined to the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. Over time, the space in your world increases in size (e.g. it takes you longer to return to your starting point if you head off in a straight line at the same speed in one direction on the surface). New surface area seems to be continuously appearing from nowhere.
And this is where you are wrong, you forget that the this baloon world needs to exist somewhere, somwehrre where it has dimensions and space, 2d balloon cannot expand if there is nothing outside that baloon, meaing outside the balloon there are no dimensions-something that has dimensions cannot exist and expand in nothing that is dimensionless-wake up.
One way to picture our own universe by analogy is that we're three-dimensional beings crawling along a 3-dimensional "surface". That surface could, in principle, be viewed as "blowing up" in a higher-dimensional space. So, "new space" seems to be continuously appearing from nowhere.
And this is totally wrong, 3d beings do not create space, neither does anything else-you are forgetting the fact that those 3d beings would not be able to crawl into higher-dimensional space if there is no higher-dimensional space or any other space whatsoever-where they can crawl too. I cannot believe, that you cannot see great errors in such misinterpretations.
Plus there is no such thing as higher dimensional space-if there was no space there would not be any dimension in the first place.
I suspect you won't like this analogy, probably because of your avowed aversion to mathematics.
As an alternative, you might like to consider the idea that the universe is spatially infinite in extent, in which case it needn't expand "in" anything. Stuff can just move apart into already-existing space. But maybe you don't like the "mathematical" idea of infinity either?
This is not about what I like ro dislike, it is about facts that you misinterpret by using mathematics-and you don't see in what errors this same mathematics leads you.
No, I think the universe is infinite and eternal, but everything else inside the universe is created )dust, planets, stars, galaxies-for something like this I didn't need math.
Who says the multi-dimensional universe exists in "nothing"? What do you mean by "nothing"? How can anything exist in "nothing", and who says it does?
That's your question to answer, because you are the one who belongs to such religious society, not me.
Your society is telling us that universe exists and expands in nothing, not me, shame on you, and by such false statements, you are lying to the entire world.
I have already proven with 2 questions why is this 100% wrong-something cannot exist in nothing.
And something with dimensions cannot exist in nothing that is dimensionless-and that's exactly what the Big Bang hypothesis ssays and suggests-since it says there is nothing outside the existing and expanding universe.
