Infinite energy in our universe

[Age]

I already cited an article in the previous post.

LOL

I asked this BEFORE your previous post. So, using the 'already' word, as though you had ALREADY informed me PREVIOUSLY, is a deceptive tactic.

And, the article in the that post does NOT answer the ACTUAL questions I asked you anyway.

If you can NOT speak up, and answer for your OWN claims, "yourself", then I suggest you learn MORE about what you are claiming to be true.

I didn't miss anything.

If you REALLY did NOT miss ANY thing, then answer the question and tell us WHY you BELIEVE 'infinite energy IS an impossibility' but start a thread about the 'infinite energy in the Universe'.

From my perspective, you appear to have NOTICED the CONTRADICTION in your claims and are now 'trying' your hardest to DEFLECT from this.

That is you who missed my point.

What is YOUR POINT?

You CLAIM I "missed your point", so TELL us what is YOUR POINT.

Why don't you try to educate yourself?

LOL
LOl
LOL

Here AGAIN is MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF in regards to what I am saying and POINTING OUT.

These people REALLY did have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in regards to some of their claims, but this did NOT stop them from BELIEVING and EXPRESSING those claims.

You are wrong.

WHERE am I wrong?

'you', the human being standing on earth, when looking at the sun IS at the, so called, "edge of observation". The sun when being observed is, literally, the furthermost thing that can be observed (and I wrote this in this specific way so that some of you would ASSUME something that I am NOT at all saying, nor meaning) and so, according to your "logic", is moving at the speed of light. Which, obviously, it is NOT.

The speed of expansion is very small and can only be observed on the large scale.

1. Thee Universe is NOT expanding.

2. If It was, then "very small" is a very relative term.

One moment you are saying objects are moving faster than the speed of light and that the speed of expansion is faster than the speed at light, "past some "edge of observation" point, which OBVIOUSLY to some is NOT "very small" AT ALL, BUT, then you also say and claim the speed of expansion is "very small". So, which one is it, REALLY, to you?

And, WHERE, exactly, are you referring to when you talk about "the speed of expansion" being "very small"?

The reason you can not and so will NOT answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, to you, is because if you did try to, then you would have to continually CONTRADICT what you had previously said and written.

Therefore, even Sun goes away from Earth with a speed but that speed is negligible.

LOL

When you look at the sun, the sun is at "the edge of observation", for you and from your perspective. And, according to "your logic" and your CLAIM that this then means the sun is travelling at the speed of light. Which, as has ALREADY been pointed out to you, by "others", is NOT TRUE.

I would discuss this with you further once you read the article.

I have read the article, now, what is 'it' that you would further discuss with me?

[bahman]

LOL

I asked this BEFORE your previous post. So, using the 'already' word, as though you had ALREADY informed me PREVIOUSLY, is a deceptive tactic.

And, the article in the that post does NOT answer the ACTUAL questions I asked you anyway.

If you can NOT speak up, and answer for your OWN claims, "yourself", then I suggest you learn MORE about what you are claiming to be true.



If you REALLY did NOT miss ANY thing, then answer the question and tell us WHY you BELIEVE 'infinite energy IS an impossibility' but start a thread about the 'infinite energy in the Universe'.

From my perspective, you appear to have NOTICED the CONTRADICTION in your claims and are now 'trying' your hardest to DEFLECT from this.


What is YOUR POINT?

You CLAIM I "missed your point", so TELL us what is YOUR POINT.


LOL
LOl
LOL

Here AGAIN is MORE EVIDENCE and PROOF in regards to what I am saying and POINTING OUT.

These people REALLY did have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in regards to some of their claims, but this did NOT stop them from BELIEVING and EXPRESSING those claims.



WHERE am I wrong?

'you', the human being standing on earth, when looking at the sun IS at the, so called, "edge of observation". The sun when being observed is, literally, the furthermost thing that can be observed (and I wrote this in this specific way so that some of you would ASSUME something that I am NOT at all saying, nor meaning) and so, according to your "logic", is moving at the speed of light. Which, obviously, it is NOT.



1. Thee Universe is NOT expanding.

2. If It was, then "very small" is a very relative term.

One moment you are saying objects are moving faster than the speed of light and that the speed of expansion is faster than the speed at light, "past some "edge of observation" point, which OBVIOUSLY to some is NOT "very small" AT ALL, BUT, then you also say and claim the speed of expansion is "very small". So, which one is it, REALLY, to you?

And, WHERE, exactly, are you referring to when you talk about "the speed of expansion" being "very small"?

The reason you can not and so will NOT answer my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, to you, is because if you did try to, then you would have to continually CONTRADICT what you had previously said and written.


LOL

When you look at the sun, the sun is at "the edge of observation", for you and from your perspective. And, according to "your logic" and your CLAIM that this then means the sun is travelling at the speed of light. Which, as has ALREADY been pointed out to you, by "others", is NOT TRUE.

I would discuss this with you further once you read the article.

I have read the article, now, what is 'it' that you would further discuss with me?

Cool, haven't you see the evidence for universe expanding based on experiment?

[Age]

I would discuss this with you further once you read the article.

I have read the article, now, what is 'it' that you would further discuss with me?

Cool, haven't you see the evidence for universe expanding based on experiment?

No, what supposed 'evidence' and 'experiment' are you referring to, exactly?

Also, have you not yet seen thee actual PROOF that thee Universe could not expand, and thus is NOT expanding?

[bahman]

I have read the article, now, what is 'it' that you would further discuss with me?

Cool, haven't you see the evidence for universe expanding based on experiment?

No, what supposed 'evidence' and 'experiment' are you referring to, exactly?

So you haven't read the article carefully!? Please read this part.

Also, have you not yet seen thee actual PROOF that thee Universe could not expand, and thus is NOT expanding?

Where is the proof?

[Age]

Cool, haven't you see the evidence for universe expanding based on experiment?

No, what supposed 'evidence' and 'experiment' are you referring to, exactly?

So you haven't read the article carefully!? Please read this part.

So, you are not capable of just saying what, supposed, 'evidence' and 'experiment' you were referring to, correct?

Also, have you not yet seen thee actual PROOF that thee Universe could not expand, and thus is NOT expanding?

Where is the proof?

In the definition of the word 'Universe', for one.

Another is in the fact of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how these two things, together, could not have begun and also can not be bounded.

A third is in energy itself, and why energy, itself, exists.

That is where the proof is.

Are you ever going to provide what this, so called, "evidence" and "experiment" you are talking about?

[bahman]

No, what supposed 'evidence' and 'experiment' are you referring to, exactly?

So you haven't read the article carefully!? Please read this part.

So, you are not capable of just saying what, supposed, 'evidence' and 'experiment' you were referring to, correct?

Do you want me to repeat what is written in the article? I don't think that I can convince you if what I cite does not.

Also, have you not yet seen thee actual PROOF that thee Universe could not expand, and thus is NOT expanding?

Where is the proof?

In the definition of the word 'Universe', for one.

Another is in the fact of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how these two things, together, could not have begun and also can not be bounded.

A third is in energy itself, and why energy, itself, exists.

That is where the proof is.

Are you ever going to provide what this, so called, "evidence" and "experiment" you are talking about?

You are hopeless.

[Age]

So you haven't read the article carefully!? Please read this part.

So, you are not capable of just saying what, supposed, 'evidence' and 'experiment' you were referring to, correct?

Do you want me to repeat what is written in the article? I don't think that I can convince you if what I cite does not.

Where is the proof?

In the definition of the word 'Universe', for one.

Another is in the fact of what the Universe is fundamentally made up of and how these two things, together, could not have begun and also can not be bounded.

A third is in energy itself, and why energy, itself, exists.

That is where the proof is.

Are you ever going to provide what this, so called, "evidence" and "experiment" you are talking about?

You are hopeless.

LOL