Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason

[marcin]

@Harry Costas is light physical? Also, is the velocity and the kinetic energy of massive body physical?

 

[Harry Costas]

Light is physical
Kinetic energy is the physical of any matter

 

[marcin]

@Harry Costas Non-zero kinetic energy requires non-zero velocity in the chosen reference frame. If the kinetic energy (based on the velocity and mass of a massive body) is physical, then the velocity is also physical. Velocity is the distance over time differential or simply distance over time for inertial motion. How can a physical velocity arise from unphysical space and time?

Light's energy is based on its frequency, which is based on EM oscillation period and the wavelength. The shorter the wavelength and the shorter the oscillation period, the greater the energy of the photon. How can a photon have a physical energy if it's based on unphysical wavelength and unphysical wave period?

Additional question: How many times did you repeat on this forum that space and time are unphysical, without giving any arguments, like the ones I'm giving you on their physicality?

Space is not physical
Time is not physical.

Matter within the universe expresses itself as Space-Time, particularly around Black Holes.

If you claim that matter is physical, then your statement is a self-contradiction. If matter expresses itself as Space-Time, and both Space and Time are not physical, then the matter is also not physical. Physical source can't have non-physical expression.

 

[Catastrophe]

I think a catalyst is a chemical jig. And it speeds a reaction with alignment and orientation. Just like a mechanical jig does.

I have explained catalysis in #209. The ABC example covers alignment and orientation - that is the function of C - to produce molecular configurations which come together in more reactive configurations. Not to hold one component immobile.

A jig is not a bad model if you equate holding a piece steady as assuming better interaction of piece and jig. It is not holding tightly which is required, it should allow manoeuvrability of both components. The difference is that the holding must not cover an interacting component, or in any way interfere with its movement or accessibility. Apologies if this sounds nit picky. The ABC description allows free movement of A, B, and C. I don't know what a jig would be in a chemical example.

Cat

 

[marcin]

I'm really, really glad and thankful that you're here, @Catastrophe