Recent content by SMyers

fortunately, just like you, i have zero empirical proof of anything. so until then we are just two logins on a message board spouting opinions. the difference is, my ideas make sense. and they don't require two pages of calculations to arrive at them. i have a feeling you know i'm right, and...

perhaps mainstream cosmology has no imagination. i actually agree with most of BBT, and i've attempted to bring my ideas elsewhere with no result. so ya'll get me instead lol. nice to meet you.

the mere fact that the observed cosmic microwave background is equidistant from us in all directions makes it an observational effect, not an effect created by the universe. it makes the archaic assumption that us here on Earth are at the center of the cosmos. it is geo-centric, and therefore...

the simplest answer is that the standard model of cosmology is completely wrong and that galaxies are not expanding faster than the speed of light, which violates the laws of physics and is utterly ridiculous. the only reason you ask this rhetorical question is because it is based in the...

i got you. question then: is it assumed that only two particle communicate forever? or do the particles mix it up, entangling within a pair at one instance, then entangling in a new pair with a new particle in the next instance. do they mate for life lol? or are they promiscuous. because in...

you pretty much just described the hypersphere model i posted on another thread. 1) photon energy transfer happens along a time axis (ie: another dimension) 2) red shift is a time-decay function, not a function of velocity or distance. 3) therefore the standard model is wrong about a number of...

wow so i skimmed through all this and all i see is attempt after attempt to work around the fact that the age of the universe as calculated by the standard model is just flat wrong lmao. what was someone saying way up there, something about particles that existed pre-big bang , and then survive...

but in order for the second particle to position itself in the opposite orientation as the first, it has to "know" what the first's orientation is, and also instantly "learn" what any new position is. that is communication, of some form. this communication doesn't have to come directly from the...

the issue with this, besides violating general relativity, is "where does the energy come from to accelerate the light?" models that use variable light speed to solve the errors in the standard model all have the same flaw, conservation of energy. this is because the standard model itself set...

ha yea sorry, can't help you on that one. best i can think of is the idea of the wormhole. in theory it bends space-time until two vastly disconnected points are then 'touching'.... on a macro scale. perhaps there is some form of micro-level 'wormhole' tunnel system connecting every point in...

no worries lol. the point of this thread was to disprove my hypothesis about how the standard model is incorrectly using red shift. so far you haven't disproven it, but i appreciate the comments. unless your ideas fit into the standard model, which i don't see that they do, we are in the same...

sounds like you are combining red shift (time) with luminosity (distance), which in effect agrees with what i am postulating. question: i was under the impression that radio waves, being electromagnetic, travel at the same speed as light. do you differ in this opinion? or are you saying that...

what do you consider to be the observational proof of this.

pretty sure i just solved Dark Matter and Dark Energy haaaha. you're welcome.

i would love to see a physical explanation ..... the only radio experience i have is the one in my car lmao