What? North is defined as "in the direction of the North Pole"
And above that? So that's where your thinking stops...never mind the nature of the question to begin with.
Yes, it is orderly, the Big Bang explains why, if it didn't no one would accept it.
No the Big Bang DOESN'T explain why. The natural tendency of nature is disorder, not order. But you've given us yet another example of the Orwellianized mind you have.
No, it isn't, I explained why in my post. Care to explain why the reasoning is invalid?
I just told you, my hard-headed counterpart: The Law of Conservation of mass, and add to that the Law of conservation of energy...neither of which can be created nor destroyed and is conserved in every single experiment and/or observation ever made. I gave my documentation and as usual, you ignored it. But one last time ( AND THIS WILL BE YOUR LAST TIME arguing with me.)
Quote: The law of conservation of energy is one of the basic laws of physics and therefore governs the microscopic motion of individual atoms in a chemical reaction. The law of conservation energy states:http://www.nyu.edu/c...re_2/node4.html
In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved.
But like I said, no matter what we lay before you or how solid the evidence is and no matter what law we appeal to you will not be corrected by anyone.
Can you say where the energy goes when redshift due to universal expansion occurs?
First, prove the expansion to begin with. Your beliefs are direct violation of the laws of conservation of mass and energy but you don't seem to have a clue of that fact.
Also, I have a very above-average knowledge of physics, at the risk of bragging I am at the top of my class at the university. I know that the law of conservation of energy isn't quite universal, and I know why. It's due to Noether's Theorem, probably the foundation of all modern physics from which all of the laws can be derived from.
Your 'knowledge' is junk. Period. Whoever taught you this nonsense is an idiot and he doesn't have any more of a clue about the truth of the matter than you do.
Arp implied that the scientific community thought that it was only redshift due to recession that the scientific community accepted. This is false, every single piece of "evidence" exposed in that article is perfectly explainable if you consider all three causes and doesn't require any of that "intrinsic redshift" nonsense.
A man who cannot even read carefully has no standing with those who can.
That is the beauty of infinity, if you're infinite, you don't need anything to expand into, you can expand into yourself. Google Hilbert's Grand Hotel for a cool explanation of this.
We weren't talking about people/humans...student. I asked you plainly WHAT IS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON of our universe. Since the vacuum of space is not, after all, emptiness and it does have energy then WHAT IS BEYOND IT?
If you want to get technical you'd say that the cardinality of a countably infinite set is equal to Aleph0 and that any sets that are derived from multiplicative transformations to that set will have the same cardinality of Aleph0.
More monkey business. But you know good and well you CANNOT demonstrate your idea. No one ever has.
Or if you want to butcher the beautiful math you can just say that infinity times two equals the same infinity (and yes, some infinite are different than others, in this particular case, however, the infinities are the exact same even if you multiply one).
That doesn't help you solve the problem. The math breaks down when you cannot even conclude what 'x' is in the first place. But that never occurs to you.
Also this applies to a universe that isn't infinite but rather finite but unbounded, but for that to make sense you need to represent it as a 3d universe embedded in a 4d hypersphere, do note that the hypersphere doesn't have to exist, it's only a representation of the phenomena.
There is no hypothesis, no null hypothesis and no tests, therefore it is not scientific. Show me a paper, preferably peer-reviewed
There was direct observation, measurements, and data that was given as well as confirmation by other scientists(as Enoch and I both posted it) who have good eyesight; not like the self-afflicted blind men 'astronomers' you prefer to listen to. You just plainly don't care...........about anything if it disagrees with your personal notions. So I'm not going to show you anything....at least not anything more after this discussion, because it wouldn't change your thinking in the slightest.
Richard Feynman died in 1988. Quantum Mechanics and our understanding of it has advanced a lot since then.
Not yours. You can't even grasp the simplest laws of science in their practical applications. You deliberately twist those laws to fit your prejudices.
There are still questions, but we have a decent grasp of it.
The only thing you have demonstrated by your outrageous statements is just how badly you've been bamboozled by a poor education. We wouldn't be so hard on you except for the fact of your continual arrogance and know-it-all attitude. You do not grasp it nor does anyone else...i.e. the Schroedingers Cat experiments. Wiser men who have done such experiments repeatedly tell us that they don't know why they get such results.
Please tell me what the cause of virtual particles is, then.
Enoch told you. Go back and read it on this very thread. (Hint; in the last seven paragraphs of his last post).
All the laws of the universe are derived from the second law of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation (Well, except for the 2LOT and the conservation laws, obviously), the laws of conservation are derived from the symmetries of the universe through Noether's Theorem. no one knows the cause of the 2LoT
No one of your persuasion knows the cause of the other laws either.
(Though don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ideas) or of the symmetries, but they're probably inherent properties
Properties from where???............cause and effect......cause and effect...........cause and effect............cause and effect. What was the cause of the properties and how did it bring about the effect? Will you ever get it?
If that's the case the question goes back to the origin of the system, that is, the universe, to which the answer is, again, nobody knows, but there are plenty of ideas.
Again, that's the only right conclusion you've had in this entire debate.
Like your teachers, you just make it up as you go and you blindly swallow any idea that will help you maintain your unbelief in the God who made you. And you are actually going to teach this stuff to students some day? God forbid.
Don't bother. I think I'll put you on ignore like Enoch did and conserve some energy.