Question Infinity or not infinity that is the question.

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
You haven't give a counter argument, you have quoted a few bits and made an assumption without explanation . I gave the counter argument with evidence proving Olbers paradox isn't a real thing .

Are you saying space isn't transparent or there isn't EMR between distance bodies ?
I'm addressing your personal attacks, which have nothing to do with the above, and you know it! The last line of the above is the way to go about it.
 
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
To me darkness is the absence of light.

But there might be a lot of sideways light that we can't see. So even if filled with light, it would still be dark.
The present information says darkness is the absence of light , this isn't even your own thought , it is an implant of education that is incorrect !

Darkness is a observation perception of something that isn't illuminated that blends in with the observation perception that space is dark . The only reason space looks dark though is because there is nothing illuminated in that space .

Ok, try this , here is a lesson on sight .

Even with your eyes shut , you mind is connected to Space-Time and when you open your eyes , you can see through space-time anything that is illuminated or not illuminated .

Fly a visually black drone in the sky at night and look up . You can't see the drone but you know very well the space between your eyes and the drone isn't opaque , it is transparent .
 
You haven't give a counter argument, you have quoted a few bits and made an assumption without explanation . I gave the counter argument with evidence proving Olbers paradox isn't a real thing .

Are you saying space isn't transparent or there isn't EMR between distance bodies ?
Of course, he isn't. Yes, Atlan is hard to understand sometimes but give him some room and pick the gems. That sounds very patronising (apologies Atlan but you don't deserve disrespect). I know you are more than capable of sorting Thermo but he is challenging and we need that. Even if so far fairly trivial but that's because he isn't quite 'in the swing of things here'. Ha ha, he thinks we are all daft. He'll learn.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
What term would you call an empty transparency?
I'd call it Absolute Space like Newton taught me !

People don't realise that when Einstein converged Space and Time to create Space-Time, the underlying Space in his theory , was Newtons Absolute Space .
I listened to Newton , Einstein and Higgs to conclude that Absolute Space has a conservation property and any given point (x0,y0,z0,) conserves a 1:1 ratio of light . This conservation being the ''fabric'' of Space-Time or a Higgs ''field''. In the old days this conservation was known as the aether but until now , ''undetected''.

I discovered it was light by thinking about it ! A single Photon in an absolute space becomes stationary because any given point of the Space is identical to the point it presently occupies .
What this means is that the point it occupies has the same force (Gravity-B) as any other point so the Photon would have inertia because of this fact .

More technically , any given point of an Absolute Space has an Eigen value of 0 . The conserved Photon point has an Eigen value of 1 . The Photon then cannot transition from one position to another because it is conserved by its stationary conservation position .

It gets quite complex but that is my answer to your question !
 
Not everywhere because there is regions of Space beyond our observations that are still Absolute Space ! Space is infinite , it can never completely fill with light and this is a good thing because visual Universes would overheat all the time without this .
It does "overheat all the time" (in superposition). It's called the "Planck heat."

In two-plane fractal zooms structure of universes, it's known as the (go with) smooth plane . . . as opposed to the (go against) coarse-grained chunky plane.
 
Last edited:
We keep learning, and then some.

[Submitted on 5 Nov 2024]

Analysis of Multi-epoch JWST Images of ∼300 Little Red Dots: Tentative Detection of Variability in a Minority of Sources​

Zijian Zhang, Linhua Jiang, Weiyang Liu, Luis C. Ho
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has revealed a population of red and compact sources at z≳5 known as "Little Red Dots" (LRDs) that are likely active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Here we present a comprehensive study of the variability of 314 LRDs with multi-epoch JWST observations in five deep fields: UDS, GOODS-S, GOODS-N, Abell 2744, and COSMOS. Our analyses use all publicly available JWST NIRCam imaging data in these fields, together with multi-epoch JWST MIRI images available. We measure the significance of the variabilities (signal-to-noise ratio or SNRvar) for all LRDs and statistically evaluate their variabilities using the SNRvar distributions. We pay particular attention to the systematic offsets of photometric zero points among different epochs that seem to commonly exist. The derived SNRvar distributions of the LRDs, including those with broad Hα/Hβ emission lines, follow the standard Gaussian distribution, and are generally consistent with those of the comparison samples of objects detected in the same images. This finding suggests that the LRD population on average does not show strong variability, which can be due to super-Eddington accretion of the black holes in AGNs. Alternatively, they are dominated by galaxies. We also find eight strongly variable LRD candidates with variability amplitudes of 0.24 - 0.82 mag. The rest-frame optical SEDs of these variable LRDs should have significant AGN contribution. Future JWST observations will provide more variability information of LRDs.
 
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
It does "overheat all the time" (in superposition). It's called the "Planck heat."
Call it what you like but that isn't true , Space can never overheat by design . I'm not about to lecture you on heat or how things work . I will give some simple answers just to be polite but I am going to avoid some major stuff .
 
Call it what you like but that isn't true , Space can never overheat by design . I'm not about to lecture you on heat or how things work . I will give some simple answers just to be polite but I am going to avoid some major stuff .
Aww! Lecture all you want! I've lectured many times in many posts, including regarding temperature and the Trojan of "temperate"!


To be continued....
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
Aww! Lecture all you want! I've lectured many times in many posts, including regarding temperature and the Trojan of "temperate"!


To be continued....
What on Earth has that suppose to be ?

Temperature is a measure !

Heat is a perception via the senses !

Overheat is a generalised statement that can refer to several things in slang terms.

''A Cars Engine overheats'' where the correct term would be the Car Engines temperature caused the Engine to fail !

Are you a bot ? Engines don't feel heat but can experience overheating !
 
Aww heck! Continued! (You would make a great straight man in a comedy team!)

Hawking's extreme constant of an entropically temperate (moderate) "Life Zone" of universes to go with the higher energy extreme of hot as hell (the smooth of the Planck heat). The cold (coarse grain chunky plane) is actually within the entropic temperate zone where we live.
 
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
Aww heck! Continued!

Hawking's extreme constant of an entropically temperate (moderate) "Life Zone" of universes to go with the higher energy extreme of hot as hell (the Planck heat). The cold (coarse grain chunky plane) is actually within the entropic temperate zone where we live.
Your writing gibberish again , are you using a random theory generator ?

If you are trying to get me to translate your post , think again , I have cold read mode activated !
 
Nov 14, 2024
58
2
35
Visit site
You haven't falsified a thing, and won't falsify a thing, except in your own mind. We've got a great bunch of thinkers and visionaries here and you are trying so hard to not be one of either.
There is no educating a brick wall , I have shown you all many things but you must be poor thinkers if you don't get it !

Ok, try this :

Present Gravity equation : F=GmM/r^2

m , M and r^2 aren't a physical measure , they are made up values by the scientific community !


Therefore the equation is meaningless.

Additionally the correct equation would be

r=m+M/F