Is Space Fake?

MayCaesar

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

@Evidence

Doppler effect is the shift of the frequency of the received periodic signal caused by the point emitting it moving radially with regards to you. It has nothing to do with the speed of the propagation of the signal.

My assertion about it being case one was correct.

Light is both a particle and a wave, but in your hypothetical "space", since it has no medium to travel through, it must behave as a particle, and shouldn't exhibit a Doppler effect, which curiously enough, proves that the earth is not in motion. But you've ignored the real life observation of stars, which many people are making, and "redshift" is a ridiculous thing to say is happening.

1. There is no "behaving as a particle", as each particle is a wave.
2. Doppler effect does  depend on the object, as long as this object can be represented as a periodic wave - it is a simple geometrical fact.
3. You do not get that redshift from observation of stars, as the stars we can directly observe are too close to us for the cosmological redshift to be noticeable compared to the redshift caused by the star randomly drifting towards or away from us.
4. The latter is just as easily measurable; in fact, you would see the effects of the redshift yourself, if you spent any time working with real stellar spectra, as I do on the everyday basis.

I can go on and on, but it is a waste of time, since you have zero knowledge on the subject and do not understand the very basics of the theories you are trying to refute. I am sorry to say, but watching conspiracy theories on Youtube will not make up for the lack of dedication and effort spent studying the real science.

LogicVault

Some planets in our solar system can be seen even with a cheap telescope. It's observable that they are an extremely far distance from us. That is space.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

Some planets in our solar system can be seen even with a cheap telescope. It's observable that they are an extremely far distance from us. That is space.

It is observable that they are far away, but millions of miles? How would you calculate this?

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

@Evidence

Doppler effect is the shift of the frequency of the received periodic signal caused by the point emitting it moving radially with regards to you. It has nothing to do with the speed of the propagation of the signal.

My assertion about it being case one was correct.

Light is both a particle and a wave, but in your hypothetical "space", since it has no medium to travel through, it must behave as a particle, and shouldn't exhibit a Doppler effect, which curiously enough, proves that the earth is not in motion. But you've ignored the real life observation of stars, which many people are making, and "redshift" is a ridiculous thing to say is happening.

1. There is no "behaving as a particle", as each particle is a wave.
2. Doppler effect does  depend on the object, as long as this object can be represented as a periodic wave - it is a simple geometrical fact.
3. You do not get that redshift from observation of stars, as the stars we can directly observe are too close to us for the cosmological redshift to be noticeable compared to the redshift caused by the star randomly drifting towards or away from us.
4. The latter is just as easily measurable; in fact, you would see the effects of the redshift yourself, if you spent any time working with real stellar spectra, as I do on the everyday basis.

I can go on and on, but it is a waste of time, since you have zero knowledge on the subject and do not understand the very basics of the theories you are trying to refute. I am sorry to say, but watching conspiracy theories on Youtube will not make up for the lack of dedication and effort spent studying the real science.

1. If it were acting as a wave in space, we wouldn't see it at all.
2. I suppose you have some supporting evidence of this claim...
3. So your claim is unfalsifiable, being that "redshift" cannot be empirically observed? This is the definition of pseudoscience.
4. This is a bold claim, not unlike the claim that you can apply "chemical analysis" on rocks to determine their age. 

These are just bare assertions to be honest, with a hint of anecdotal and ad hominem. We've literally no reason to believe anything you say.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
With observation and math.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
With observation and math.

Please, ellaborate.

Evidence

TheShaun said:

@Evidence
The vacuum of space doesn't work the same way as a man made device that applies suction. There is a decent explanation found here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294694/how-is-the-space-vacuum-not-strong-enough-to-pull-the-atmosphere-off

@TheShaun

"Two Identical rooms" answer to why NASA Space doesn't suck!

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294694/how-is-the-space-vacuum-not-strong-enough-to-pull-the-atmosphere-off

- Imagine you have two identical rooms with a door between them. One is a vacuum and the other is filled with air. The air molecules are moving in straight lines until they bounce into each other and get deflected.

Now, you open the door between the two rooms. Air molecules near the door that just happen to be traveling towards the door have nothing to bump against. So a lot of them will do so. So over a short period of time, there will be few air molecules near the door. So molecules going into that direction will also be able to keep going in that direction without bumping into anything. This chain reaction keeps happening until there is now about the same number of molecules in the two rooms.

That's what vacuums "sucking" is: molecules that are randomly traveling towards the vacuum having an unimpeded path which frees space for more molecules traveling by random in that direction.

So now look at earth. It's almost the same thing, but you need to add gravity. The molecules aren't going in random directions. Gravity pulls them down and away from the vacuum of space. So instead of many molecules being on their path towards space in the first place, few are. And so our atmosphere doesn't just escape into space.

This has to be the most moronic explanation I have heard yet, it's worse than the red-tinted pictures of our desert passed of as the "surface of an imaginary planet Mars"

"Two identical rooms" .. So you equal the atmosphere on a teeny tiny speck like your Globe earth, to your infinite space-vacuum which, just the observable part is already 80 billion light years in diameter!?

You call that "Almost the same thing as two identical rooms with a door between them"  ??? LOL

Hey buddy @Erfisflat just how much of this snake-lying tongue NASA, and 666CERN insult must we take?

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

TheShaun said:

@Evidence
The vacuum of space doesn't work the same way as a man made device that applies suction. There is a decent explanation found here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294694/how-is-the-space-vacuum-not-strong-enough-to-pull-the-atmosphere-off

@TheShaun

"Two Identical rooms" answer to why NASA Space doesn't suck!

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/294694/how-is-the-space-vacuum-not-strong-enough-to-pull-the-atmosphere-off

- Imagine you have two identical rooms with a door between them. One is a vacuum and the other is filled with air. The air molecules are moving in straight lines until they bounce into each other and get deflected.

Now, you open the door between the two rooms. Air molecules near the door that just happen to be traveling towards the door have nothing to bump against. So a lot of them will do so. So over a short period of time, there will be few air molecules near the door. So molecules going into that direction will also be able to keep going in that direction without bumping into anything. This chain reaction keeps happening until there is now about the same number of molecules in the two rooms.

That's what vacuums "sucking" is: molecules that are randomly traveling towards the vacuum having an unimpeded path which frees space for more molecules traveling by random in that direction.

So now look at earth. It's almost the same thing, but you need to add gravity. The molecules aren't going in random directions. Gravity pulls them down and away from the vacuum of space. So instead of many molecules being on their path towards space in the first place, few are. And so our atmosphere doesn't just escape into space.

This has to be the most moronic explanation I have heard yet, it's worse than the red-tinted pictures of our desert passed of as the "surface of an imaginary planet Mars"

"Two identical rooms" .. So you equal the atmosphere on a teeny tiny speck like your Globe earth, to your infinite space-vacuum which, just the observable part is already 80 billion light years in diameter!?

You call that "Almost the same thing as two identical rooms with a door between them"  ??? LOL

Hey buddy @Erfisflat just how much of this snake-lying tongue NASA, and 666CERN insult must we take?

As long as there are parrots.

Evidence

MayCaesar said:

@Evidence

Doppler effect is the shift of the frequency of the received periodic signal caused by the point emitting it moving radially with regards to you. It has nothing to do with the speed of the propagation of the signal.

My assertion about it being case one was correct.

 @MayCaesar so now what you're saying is that "light, in a vacuum does NOT travel at a constant", is this correct?!?

So if one of NASA's space ships like;

c

that's traveling at 0.5C relative to Huston on earth turns on its lights, .. that light coming off the Enterprise's headlights is now traveling at 1.5C, .. or 1 1/2 times faster than the maximum speed of light allowed to travel in the vacuum of space?


Talk about contradictions and paradoxes galore, .. so how far do you say Mars is again? Or any star, or how old is your BB-Universe again, .. since NASA calculates all light in the vacuum of space traveling at 'C'? I will show you that Redshift is just one teeny-tiny problem with your BB-Universe, where you will wish you never even mentioned this Redshift .

Ooops, .. Huston we have a problem! The Mars Rover is not really on Mars, but on Tatooine! That's why people are spotting alien rodents, and R2D2 parts on its surface! .. lol

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Please, ellaborate." Parallax.

LogicVault

@Evidence
The difference of size between his example and our universe is irrelevant to the physics being discussed. The vacuum of space does not pull on anything like a vacuum you clean carpets with. It's simply void of pressure. Just like the non-pressurized room in the example. All it takes to prevent the molecules from escaping the pressurized system is a force stronger than the amount of pressure each individual molecule is under. It simply comes down to pressure and gravity. Gravity is stronger towards the center of our planet. That is why the pressure is higher down here where we are and lower in the upper layers of our atmosphere. The pressure of our atmosphere does not suddenly drop off at any point. It gradually decreases the higher you go.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Please, ellaborate." Parallax.

You call that ellaborating? It's one word. 

Ellaborate;
verb:

1. develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail.

Are you suggesting that there is parallax where there is none? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you haven't a clue what you are saying, hence the one word response. Would you like me to explain what parallax is and how it proves the earth is not in motion? That instead, the stars are all a single distance from the earth.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
With observation and math.

Please, ellaborate.

@Erfisflat if he elaborated, we could both see the fallacy in his thinking. So one liners is what we get, like from NASA, it's one CGI picture at a time, or one view, or one take, or one painting at a time.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
The difference of size between his example and our universe is irrelevant to the physics being discussed. The vacuum of space does not pull on anything like a vacuum you clean carpets with. It's simply void of pressure. Just like the non-pressurized room in the example. All it takes to prevent the molecules from escaping the pressurized system is a force stronger than the amount of pressure each individual molecule is under. It simply comes down to pressure and gravity. Gravity is stronger towards the center of our planet. That is why the pressure is higher down here where we are and lower in the upper layers of our atmosphere. The pressure of our atmosphere does not suddenly drop off at any point. It gradually decreases the higher you go.

@LogicVault so you are actually saying that your gravity is holding our atmosphere and our water from freezing and being sucked into a perfect vacuum of space? That for the past millions and billions of Carl Sagan years there is this slow osmosis/equilibrium going on between our atmosphere and the infinite vacuum of space? And that once earths atmosphere, or air molecules equal out with space, NASATAN could send their spacemen to Mars in a convertible, .. you know, where the two rooms, which is this space and earths atmosphere will be equalized!?

Wow, what disrespect of human dignity, but I guess if we bought the "moon landing" and one single picture of earth; the Blue Marble as evidence, your explanation (which I'm sure is NASATAN approved) should be more than sufficient for us human animals. We should be grateful for the Blue Marble composite picture NASA gave us, right? Which costed us what, .. only like a trillion dollars!?

Evidence

MayCaesar said:

Erfisflat said:

MayCaesar said:

@Evidence

Doppler effect is the shift of the frequency of the received periodic signal caused by the point emitting it moving radially with regards to you. It has nothing to do with the speed of the propagation of the signal.

My assertion about it being case one was correct.

Light is both a particle and a wave, but in your hypothetical "space", since it has no medium to travel through, it must behave as a particle, and shouldn't exhibit a Doppler effect, which curiously enough, proves that the earth is not in motion. But you've ignored the real life observation of stars, which many people are making, and "redshift" is a ridiculous thing to say is happening.

1. There is no "behaving as a particle", as each particle is a wave.
2. Doppler effect does  depend on the object, as long as this object can be represented as a periodic wave - it is a simple geometrical fact.
3. You do not get that redshift from observation of stars, as the stars we can directly observe are too close to us for the cosmological redshift to be noticeable compared to the redshift caused by the star randomly drifting towards or away from us.
4. The latter is just as easily measurable; in fact, you would see the effects of the redshift yourself, if you spent any time working with real stellar spectra, as I do on the everyday basis.

I can go on and on, but it is a waste of time, since you have zero knowledge on the subject and do not understand the very basics of the theories you are trying to refute. I am sorry to say, but watching conspiracy theories on Youtube will not make up for the lack of dedication and effort spent studying the real science.

Hey @Erfisflat you noticed why they had to make the light into a wave? It was to give some credibility for the Redshift, .. this way they can use the Doppler effect on light too, just like sound 'waves' traveling through air, .. now it's light waves traveling through a vacuum, .. LOL.

Boy, we sure have been sleeping for a long time, .. I guess God had to make the "Rocks cry out" to wake us up!

LogicVault

@Evidence
"so you are actually saying that your gravity is holding our atmosphere" Yes.

"and our water from freezing" Nope. Not even the same line of discussion. Completely different topic.

"and being sucked into a perfect vacuum of space?" What do you mean by 'perfect'? What is a perfect vacuum compared to a normal vacuum? What do you think vacuum means?

"That for the past millions and billions of Carl Sagan years there is this slow osmosis/equilibrium going on between our atmosphere and the infinite vacuum of space?" Who is Carl Sagan? And yes, there is an a balance. For every action, there is and opposite and equal reaction.

"And that once earths atmosphere, or air molecules equal out with space, NASATAN could send their spacemen to Mars in a convertible" Is that a joke? I don't do jokes when debating real topics. Stick to the topic or go make jokes with someone else.

"Wow, what disrespect of human dignity" You show as much disrespect of human dignity as I do. Do not point fingers.

"but I guess if we bought the "moon landing" and one single picture of earth" I don't. Do not make assumptions.

"We should be grateful for the Blue Marble composite picture NASA gave us, right? Which costed us what, .. only like a trillion dollars!?" A fake picture does not automatically mean the concept is wrong. That is a fallacious assumption.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"so you are actually saying that your gravity is holding our atmosphere" Yes.

"and our water from freezing" Nope. Not even the same line of discussion. Completely different topic.

"and being sucked into a perfect vacuum of space?" What do you mean by 'perfect'? What is a perfect vacuum compared to a normal vacuum? What do you think vacuum means?

"That for the past millions and billions of Carl Sagan years there is this slow osmosis/equilibrium going on between our atmosphere and the infinite vacuum of space?" Who is Carl Sagan? And yes, there is an a balance. For every action, there is and opposite and equal reaction.

"And that once earths atmosphere, or air molecules equal out with space, NASATAN could send their spacemen to Mars in a convertible" Is that a joke? I don't do jokes when debating real topics. Stick to the topic or go make jokes with someone else.

"Wow, what disrespect of human dignity" You show as much disrespect of human dignity as I do. Do not point fingers.

"but I guess if we bought the "moon landing" and one single picture of earth" I don't. Do not make assumptions.

"We should be grateful for the Blue Marble composite picture NASA gave us, right? Which costed us what, .. only like a trillion dollars!?" A fake picture does not automatically mean the concept is wrong. That is a fallacious assumption.

Evidence said -  "so you are actually saying that your gravity is holding our atmosphere"
@LogicVault -  Yes.


Really? Show me how this imaginary gravity does this? Here is what we have, which is actually what NASA goes by also:

- Earth's atmosphere is divided into five main layers, starting from the top:
the exosphere,
the thermosphere,
the mesosphere,
the stratosphere and
the troposphere
and finally the flat Earth and seas where all the air supposedly originates from.
(come to think of it, even that's a lie, because if all the air came from the earth and the oceans, then we could put a huge dome tent over the ground and over part of a lake, and watch it get filled up!) And that is not what happens, the Lord put the air here when He created the Heaven and the Earth)

Anyways, here is what we have:

- The atmosphere thins out in each higher layer until the gases dissipate in space. There is no distinct boundary between the atmosphere and space, but an imaginary line about 62 miles (100 kilometers) from the surface, called the Karman line, is usually where scientists say atmosphere meets outer space.
- The thermosphere is considered part of Earth's atmosphere, but air density is so low that most of this layer is what is normally thought of as outer space. In fact, this is where the space shuttles flew and where the International Space Station orbits Earth. This is also the layer where the auroras occur. Charged particles from space collide with atoms and molecules in the thermosphere, exciting them into higher states of energy.

OK, so the atmosphere thins out in each higher layer until the gases dissipate into space. There is no distinct boundary between the atmosphere and space!

Question: Where does the air and all the gasses originate from?
In evolution, it all supposedly comes from the earth, from the ground, from the trees, from our waters like the oceans, correct? From here the air goes up to the troposphere where nearly all of the water vapor (clouds) and dust in the atmosphere are located, and then continues upwards to what we call the stratosphere which is the second layer and the air here is very dry, and it is about a thousand times thinner here than it is at sea level, .. passes the stratosphere, the air continues to rise going up and up, getting thinner and thinner and your gravity is getting weaker and weaker to what we now call the mesosphere,  which is the coldest part of Earth's atmosphere, with temperatures averaging about minus 130 degrees F. Passing the mesosphere the air continues to rise to the thermosphere, which extends from about 56 miles to between 310 and 620 miles, and after it passes the thermosphere, it rises to, and passes the exosphere, the highest layer of air which by now the air is extremely thin, with practically no gravitational pull and this is where the atmosphere merges into outer space!

So again I ask you: How come the earth is not an airless frozen wasteland, especially when the air in the exosphere is so thin, and your gravity is so weak, facing not just a vacuum pump here on earth, but the vacuum of your infinite space!? Have you ever tried to lift the top off of a vacuum chamber? Now imagine the vacuum of 'space' as your vacuum chamber with earths light atmosphere facing it, no glass between it and the Infinite-Vacuum!!?

In reality, with this scenario where the air is thick at the bottom and gravity the strongest, and gets weaker and thinner going up, and gravity weaker too, the air would be escaping faster and faster as the atmosphere is made up of the lightest molecules merging with outer space!

I know I said in minutes, but I doubt it would take more than an hour or so for the entire earths atmosphere to escape, or actually be sucked into the vacuum of infinite dark void you call space. What do you think @Erfisflat .. you think with this actual scientific scenario, their gravity (or this fantastic story) could hold air or water?

Erfisflat

@LogicVault said "For every action, there is and opposite and equal reaction."

What is the opposite and equal reaction of the motions of the earth? You know that 1,000 mph spin, an occasional wobble, the 66,600 mph racetrack around the sun, following that sun around the Galaxy at some 500,000 mph, while the entire Galaxy rotates around the great attractor some 1.3 million mph. All in various directions simultaneously.

 You seem to be able to google and parrot Nasa excuses, but you dontd know who Carl Sagan is?

Erfisflat

@Evidence, being that there is no practical example or demonstration available for supporting evidence, I can only assume it is a pseudoscientific claim, or as you said, it doesn't hold water. We'll just add this to the very long list of holes in the heliocentric model.

Erfisflat

Wait a tick. @LogicVault is a moon landing skeptic? 

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

@LogicVault said "For every action, there is and opposite and equal reaction."

What is the opposite and equal reaction of the motions of the earth? You know that 1,000 mph spin, an occasional wobble, the 66,600 mph racetrack around the sun, following that sun around the Galaxy at some 500,000 mph, while the entire Galaxy rotates around the great attractor some 1.3 million mph. All in various directions simultaneously.

 You seem to be able to google and parrot Nasa excuses, but you dontd know who Carl Sagan is?

@Erfisflat you outdid yourself. This got to be the best model of what Globetard's claim their globe does, ever. And what would the opposite reaction of the population on this twisting and twirling globe be?


Vomit.

Evidence

@LogicVault ( @Erfisflat ) evidence to prove earth could never keep its atmosphere in the vacuum of space!.

Let's take a small vacuum chamber, .. pump out the air, .. then put the bottom over a bowl full of water, .. slide the bottom out from under the chamber, .. and what do you think will happen LogicVault?

You think the water molecules will gradually osmosis into the chamber until they equal out, 1/2 water 1/2 vacuum?

No.

Take a glass full of water, place a paper over the top, .. now flip the glass full of water upside down and put the top, .. just the top of the glass touching the bowl full of water, .. now remove the paper and see what happens?

The vacuum in the glass is keeping up all the water in the glass even if lifted above the water. Where is their (answer to everything) gravity?

That's what would happen if we exposed NASATAN's globe earth to the vacuum of their cold, dark space. And let's not forget that it's an expanding vacuum at that!
Imagine trying to expand the walls of a thick Plexiglas vacuum chamber after all the air is pumped out of it?
And this supposed to be happening by itself, .. driven by gravity, .. which supposedly caused the Big-Bang!?

Remember the "God is no longer necessary theory", .. where the tiny quantum "speck" that popped out of nothing, supposedly got denser and hotter because of gravity. And unlike their imaginary black hole, it exploded just before it caved in on itself, creating an "expanding vacuum" millions and billions and trillions of Carl Sagan light years in diameter, .. and expanding exponentially as we speak.

You asked who is Carl Sagan? He is the man with millions and billions and trillions of years in his hands, .. we could call him "Father Time Sagan", who, along with his son "Gravity" Father Time created the BB-Universe:



Come on LogicVault, we can see you are much smarter than that. Come, do not let into the "dark-side", and come to the light, .. the Way, the Truth and the Light of the world Jesus Christ that is,  where we reveal the foolishness in the 'wisdom of this world'

1 Corinthians 3:18Let no one deceive himself. If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he should become a fool, so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.” 20And again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”…

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Really? Show me how this imaginary gravity does this?" Ok, jump. Did you float away or land on the ground? That's gravity. It's pulls you down just like everything else.

"the Lord put the air here when He created the Heaven and the Earth" Unless you're the first person who can prove a god exists, do not talk to me about religion.

"Question: Where does the air and all the gasses originate from?" Nitrogen and argon is released from the movements of tectonic plates. Oxygen comes from plants and plankton.

"with practically no gravitational pull" Still enough to keep it within a certain proximity of the planet. As light as those molecules are, it barely takes any gravity to keep them here.

"Have you ever tried to lift the top off of a vacuum chamber?" A vacuum chamber is a sealed container, space is not. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"with this scenario where the air is thick at the bottom and gravity the strongest" Gravity being stronger down here is the cause of the air being thicker.

"the air would be escaping faster and faster as the atmosphere is made up of the lightest molecules merging with outer space!" No, because the thinner air higher up is of very low pressure. It doesn't take much gravity to hold it.

"or actually be sucked into the vacuum of infinite dark void you call space." The vacuum of space does not apply any suction. It's simply void of pressure.

"Let's take a small vacuum chamber, .. pump out the air, .. then put the bottom over a bowl full of water, .. slide the bottom out from under the chamber, .. and what do you think will happen LogicVault?" As I said before, a vacuum chamber is a sealed container, space is not.

"Take a glass full of water, place a paper over the top, .. now flip the glass full of water upside down and put the top, .. just the top of the glass touching the bowl full of water, .. now remove the paper and see what happens?" That's due to pressure, which space does not have.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"What is the opposite and equal reaction of the motions of the earth?" The motion of the Earth IS the reaction.

"You seem to be able to google and parrot Nasa excuses" Nothing I've stated was obtained from a NASA website. I'm sure they make some similar statements, but I do not use NASA as a direct source.

"being that there is no practical example or demonstration available for supporting evidence, I can only assume it is a pseudoscientific claim" That is a fallacious assumption. Just because you personally have not observed experiments does not mean they didn't happen.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"What is the opposite and equal reaction of the motions of the earth?" The motion of the Earth IS the reaction.

"You seem to be able to google and parrot Nasa excuses" Nothing I've stated was obtained from a NASA website. I'm sure they make some similar statements, but I do not use NASA as a direct source.

"being that there is no practical example or demonstration available for supporting evidence, I can only assume it is a pseudoscientific claim" That is a fallacious assumption. Just because you personally have not observed experiments does not mean they didn't happen.

But this motion, being an action, must have a reaction also, just as any other motion does. Its ok to assume it is a reaction, but if the reaction doesn't have a reaction, it cannot be a motion. The action of me swinging a racket will cause the tennis ball to react, but the reactions don't just stop there. Just as the push of a button and an electrical signal being sent to the tilt a whirl causes it to move, and the people on board feel the forces.

And I'm not speaking for everyone when I say there is no practical demonstration or experiment to support the argument, don't get me wrong, but to call it a fallacious assumption, you would have to prove me wrong, right?

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
I actually misquoted. I should have said "every force has an equal and opposite reaction force". The spinning Earth has angular momentum in a vacuum and therefore does not use force.

"And I'm not speaking for everyone when I say there is no practical demonstration or experiment to support the argument" I know you're not. You're speaking from your own experience. You have not personally played a role in the experiments, but this does not mean they didn't happen. To assume it doesn't exist just because you didn't see it yourself is a fallacy.

"but to call it a fallacious assumption, you would have to prove me wrong, right?" You should already be aware that assuming something doesn't exist just because you don't see it is a fallacy. If I have to explain it to you beyond that, then you are not equipped to discuss complex information related to the topic of this thread. "You bit off more than you can chew", so to speak.

Erfisflat

"I actually misquoted. I should have said "every force has an equal and opposite reaction force". The spinning Earth has angular momentum in a vacuum and therefore does not use force."

Yeah, I'd say that too... Actually I don't think I would. The original quote is a LAW of physics, which is observable. The "corrected" quote is something you came up with? Lol. I'm assuming you are trying to tell me that because the earth is in a vacuum, it has no "equal and opposite reaction", therefore breaking the third law of physics? Because it's in a vacuum, right...? 

" I know you're not. You're speaking from your own experience. You have not personally played a role in the experiments, but this does not mean they didn't happen. To assume it doesn't exist just because you didn't see it yourself is a fallacy."

I suppose you have? Is there any evidence of these alleged experiments you mention? Might I also mention that saying something (that also breaks the laws of physics) is true "because someone said so" is also illogical? 

" You should already be aware that assuming something doesn't exist just because you don't see it is a fallacy. If I have to explain it to you beyond that, then you are not equipped to discuss complex information related to the topic of this thread. "You bit off more than you can chew", so to speak."

I'll ignore the ad hominem, and get the argument... Wait there isnt one. Just more assertion and assertion.

@LogicVault

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"The "corrected" quote is something you came up with?" Actually, the correction is how Newton phrased it in his 3rd law. The way I originally said it is a common misconception people have about the quote. Just like how most people say "Luke, I am your father" when the actual quote in the movie is "No, I am your father".

"I'm assuming you are trying to tell me that because the earth is in a vacuum, it has no "equal and opposite reaction"" No, I'm saying the Earth spinning in a vacuum isn't a force. It's a constant change of state that requires no force due to having no resistance.

"Might I also mention that saying something (that also breaks the laws of physics) is true "because someone said so" is also illogical?" It doesn't break a law, as I previous explained to you.

"I'll ignore the ad hominem" It's an honest observation, regardless of your feelings.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence ;

Evidence- "Really? Show me how this imaginary gravity does this?"
@LogicVault -  Ok, jump. Did you float away or land on the ground? That's gravity. It's pulls you down just like everything else.

Called "buoyancy and density", not gravity. (My friend @Erfisflat brought this to my attention not more than a year ago, yet I could almost immediately see how this works)  So, .. here is how I understand  it all works:

* Now I ask you to clear your mind (not your brain, or what information you have in your brain, but 'you' the 'spirit/mind', you who controls the information coming in and out of your brain (If you cannot understand the relationship between you spirit/mind and your physical brain, which has all the data just like a computer memory, then my explanation will be useless for you.)
* OK, cleared your mind?
* Now picture a jar, .. got it? (now you have, .. a kind of "the beginning of all creation", because as soon as your mind created that jar, you have space between the walls of the jar (this is why I said that you have to have some thing to be able to have the imaginary space)
* In physical/finite terms, you should now have an empty jar, not in space, but in You/spirit/mind, which is Infinite, it belongs to God who gave it to you at the time He breathed of himself into Adam. The space, or we can call it the universe, is IN the jar.
* Now create a Heaven which you will name "up" and put it in one end of the jar. You will later create principalities and all kinds of powers in this Heaven, and where you will store all the information, the laws and rules that make up your creations in. This Heaven will be your "throne", from where you both enjoy, and do all your business of creation.
*Now create a more physical, or with more elementary particles that are very strict rules that don't change, in other words that none of your creations can change*, and call it Earth, and this you put in the opposite end of the Jar.
* You now have space (the Jar)
- and Heaven or the Spiritual, higher realm at one end of the jar
- and the more strictly defined, where it's laws cannot be broken without the authorization of the Creator Himself, or more physical, heavy realm called earth at the opposite end of the jar/Universe.

Now everything else you create, dependent on the laws you ascribed to them, the laws that cannot be broken are heavy/earthly, or: concrete/Dense, if taken out of it's assigned environment will tend to move towards earth, which you call 'down'. While the more spiritual creations of yours, will levitate towards Heaven, or 'up'.

This is how "Density & Buoyancy" works.
Density - anything created that we cannot change the laws of, or this material earthly things that we can observe, experiment with, and use to create all kinds of other things with.
Now you might ask: "What's beyond the Jar/Universe? Or beyond where earth ends? What keeps us from falling off the earth?"

If you understood what I just explained, then you would understand that "there is no up, or down" in God (beyond the Jar/Creation), same as in your mind. Beyond imagining the Jar, there is only you the mind.
Beyond creation is God, the Infinite and Eternal Spirit/Mind, so there is no way, or no 'where' to fall off to.



Only our spirit/mind can enter back into God himself (beyond earth/universe) from where we/spirit came from.

But I did look into this, like if we were to go up to the very edge of the earth, what would we, with our physical eyes see? The answer to that may be why the German run UN and NASATAN keeps us from investigating it?
Biblically, it may be the same as Genesis 3:24 like with the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, where God placed a cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way!? So in one case it's Satan who is guarding us finding out, and if we ever reached the edge, it could be God!?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Called "buoyancy and density", not gravity." Bouyancy is an outcome of gravity. Less dense matter will "float" (per se) in more dense matter. Depending on other variables. Density obviously has a direct correlation with bouyancy. This is simple math and science.

"My friend @Erfisflat brought this to my attention not more than a year ago, yet I could almost immediately see how this works" I am aware that you side with him/her and vise versa. You both use the same trolling tactics and are aware of each other's intentions. And yes, I am fully aware of what you're doing as well. I choose to not partake in it because I realize the damage it causes. I can tell that you're not . You know what you intend to do. But you do not realize the long term effects. Doesn't this world suck enough? Is it any better with people becoming dumber due to trolls that pretend to be scientific just to lead them into thinking unrealistic concepts? You're making the world around you worse. I get that it's a game to you but you fail to realize that young and impressionable people can still visit here and possibly be convinced by your trolling. They will eventually breed and raise kids with their same mentality. You are perpetuating the cycle of stupidity that will ruin the world around you. Though, I suspect you are aware of that and do not care. A sociopath, likely. I will still continue to debate your points as long as you present them in a way that is not obvious to the average person that you're trolling. Because someone has to resist the damage you're doing to the rest of us.

"Now I ask you to clear your mind (not your brain, or what information you have in your brain, but 'you' the 'spirit/mind', you who controls the information coming in and out of your brain (If you cannot understand the relationship between you spirit/mind and your physical brain, which has all the data just like a computer memory, then my explanation will be useless for you.)" Mind or brain. Both are the same. You can't prove a spirit exists, so don't bother with that path.

"OK, cleared your mind?" No. That's impossible. Humans are always thinking. Even if they are clearing their thoughts, they are thinking about clearing their thoughts. The brain never stops.

"Now picture a jar, .. got it? (now you have, .. a kind of "the beginning of all creation", because as soon as your mind created that jar, you have space between the walls of the jar (this is why I said that you have to have some thing to be able to have the imaginary space)" are you talking about? How did you come to the point of thinking a jar is anything like the beginning of all creation? That doesn't fit religion or atheism.

"In physical/finite terms, you should now have an empty jar, not in space, but in You/spirit/mind, which is Infinite, it belongs to God who gave it to you at the time He breathed of himself into Adam." Once again, until you prove a god exists, leave that out of the discussion. This is science, not religion.

The rest of what you said will be ignored until you prove a god exists since it all relies on one. You are assuming a god. You have nothing but blind faith. Which is fancy for ASSUMPTION. Religion is the worst assumption ever made. It's just taking people from thousands of years ago word for it. And they even tell you to not test or experiment with the concept. They specifically say to follow on faith alone. How are you going to debate science and pretend to understand it when you imply that you follow religion that requires that you blindly follow without questioning? This is a key factor in how I know you're trolling. You take whatever route contradicts your opponent even if it contradicts you later or in another thread. You don't plan ahead enough to prevent this revelation. You're clever, but not enough.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence ;

Evidence -  "the Lord put the air here when He created the Heaven and the Earth"
@LogicVault - Unless you're the first person who can prove a god exists, do not talk to me about religion.

If I talked to you about Religion, then I would be talking to you about the BB-Evolution created imaginary universe, with a globe earth spinning, wobbling, expanding and spiraling out of control at 6.66 million m/p/s right smack into another imaginary galaxy called Andromeda, .. and Not about God. God does not exist in Organized Religion, they can't afford to have anyone believe in God, only gods.
You are so far removed from reality that there is no way to even converse with you outside of Religion and religious indoctrination. Does that kind of shake you from your deluded perspective? Just because you chose a lie over God does not mean our Creator doesn't exist.

Evidence - "Question: Where does the air and all the gasses originate from?"
LogicVault - Nitrogen and argon is released from the movements of tectonic plates. Oxygen comes from plants and plankton.

Which, if not for our Dome would go up and up and be sucked right out into the vacuum of expanding gravity/vacuum/spacetime.

Evidence - "with practically no gravitational pull"
LogicVault - Still enough to keep it within a certain proximity of the planet. As light as those molecules are, it barely takes any gravity to keep them here.

.. which is facing the vacuum of space. I shown you the power of a vacuum lifting sheets of heavy marble, now imagine it sucking on paper, or thin air?
So no need to explain to any un-indoctrinated person of the physical reality of a sphere rock covered in water and air, exposed to such a vacuum! You've seen what happens to a balloon in a vacuum, and NASA space is expanding at 68 k/m/s, which is like pulling the walls of a vacuum chamber apart at the rate of 244,800 km per hour, .. every hour for the past 13.75 billion years which adds to the already existing vacuum at the BB! So there is no way on earth we could ever create the vacuum that is in BB-space, .. surprised that you guys could even imagine anything surviving in such vacuum, not alone this space 'creating' things like gas giants, and black holes?!? With such enormous rate of expanding a vacuum, what could possibly create a black hole, which is another ridiculous concept created by this out-of-this-world Religion; 
"The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole." see what I mean?

Evidence - "Have you ever tried to lift the top off of a vacuum chamber?"
A vacuum chamber is a sealed container, space is not. You're comparing apples and oranges.

So tell me then as to how it can "expand"? If there is no 'container' to your universe, then what is expanding? Scientists who stick to examining the world around us, a vacuum is some container lacking air and other gasses, and the word expand means: become or make larger or more extensive. If we see two cars distancing each other on the road, we don't right away assume the road is 'expanding'. So how do BB'ers know that their universe is expanding? By observing stars circling around us that seem to be moving farther from each other? .. see what I mean?
Now to expand an already existing vacuum would be a miracle, but at a rate of 244,800 km per hour, that just defies reason.

Evidence - "with this scenario where the air is thick at the bottom and gravity the strongest"
LogicVault - Gravity being stronger down here is the cause of the air being thicker.

Yes, which adds to your problem. You ever use a blowgun? Well that's exactly how everything on earth would fly off into oblivion if it were exposed to this Space-vacuum, like blowing everything off the earth out of a blowgun, the heavier elements giving that final slingshot effect into space.
 Besides, even if your space did not have a vacuum right now, if it expanded at a rate of 244,800 km per hour, nothing would stay intact in a month. The very atoms would be separated and scattered millions and billions and trillions of light years apart.

Evidence - "the air would be escaping faster and faster as the atmosphere is made up of the lightest molecules merging with outer space!"
No, because the thinner air higher up is of very low pressure. It doesn't take much gravity to hold it.

.. against the vacuum of space which has been 'expanding' at a rate of 244,800 km per hour? That vacuum couldn't suck the atmosphere right off of earth?

Evidence - "or actually be sucked into the vacuum of infinite dark void you call space."
The vacuum of space does not apply any suction. It's not the same as a vacuum cleaner or suction cup. It's simply void of pressure.

So now your saying that the physics in the movie Gravity, or the hundreds of other sci-fi space movies are not according to BB-specification, .. that if the airlocks were opened on any of those ships, no one would get sucked out? So it's just "Void of pressure", nothing to worry about, right? All this time I though a vacuum cleaner created a void of pressure which made the air and the dirt, sand, dust be sucked into the bag?

Evidence - "Let's take a small vacuum chamber, .. pump out the air, .. then put the bottom over a bowl full of water, .. slide the bottom out from under the chamber, .. and what do you think will happen LogicVault?"
As I said before, a vacuum chamber is a sealed container, space is not.

Sir, .. it's a vacuum, an expanding at 244,800 k/m/h  vacuum at that.
You guys really need to make some huge adjustments to your BB-Evolutionary Religious doctrines because according to you, those Astronauts are as safe as if they were swimming in a pool, right? They could just swing open the doors on that ISS and float around. The air inside the ISS would remain, just as on earth since space-vacuum is different. Not really a vacuum, vacuum, .. it's space-vacuum.

Evidence - "Take a glass full of water, place a paper over the top, .. now flip the glass full of water upside down and put the top, .. just the top of the glass touching the bowl full of water, .. now remove the paper and see what happens?"
That's due to suction, which space does not have.

 Please forgive me, I did not know that NASA space vacuum does not have suction, I guess it's just a vacuum. Well sir, I guess this explains why NASA astronauts practice in NASA-pools where just like in NASA-space, they don't need to worry about suction on their space suits, or on that ISS in the pool.

I'm going to ignore your trollish taunting at the end this time, but if you continue behaving like a troll, this conversation will be over.

I am truly sorry for any trollish taunting that you might THINK I was doing, it was NOT my intention, nor do I feel I was doing that. Now if there was any sarcasm, it was in response to your impertinence, your complete disrespect of my intellect, as anyone can see from your blatant responses to my long and in depth explanations.
This is a debate, we are asked to prove our points by providing evidence and I have done so as anyone can see. Now look at your mock remark especially in your last response, where you say the vacuum of space does not have suction!?

Sir, with all due respect I'm sure you are aware that you are defending a lost cause, the reign of the bloody Third Reich is coming to an end, people are waking up, so I understand why you are angry. We are nearing the end of WW3, people are being exterminated by the millions most almost identically as they were murdered in Concentration Camps. Our children are practically a lost cause, even raising them on Biblical morals, they are like you, cannot tolerate any mention of God or the Bible.

So if you want to save face and quit now, I understand, because your pseudoscience will no longer defend you, or your Religious NASATANIC and 666CERN UN organization.

Erfisflat

Hey @Evidence, you want to go do some ISS missions with me? Maybe we can borrow some of their cameras and video software. I don't think we'll make as much money as they do for them though.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/as-it-seeks-to-pare-costs-nasa-opens-its-historic-facilities-to-private-companies/

LogicVault

@Evidence
"If I talked to you about Religion, then I would be talking to you about the BB-Evolution created imaginary universe, with a globe earth spinning, wobbling, expanding and spiraling out of control at 6.66 million m/p/s right smack into another imaginary galaxy called Andromeda, .. and Not about God." Statements like this is a good example of how it's obvious that you're trolling.

"God does not exist in Organized Religion, they can't afford to have anyone believe in God, only gods."

religion

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed

a particular system of faith and worship.

"Just because you chose a lie over God does not mean our Creator doesn't exist." I never said one did or did not exist. I said unless you can prove one exists, do not talk to me about it. 

"You are so far removed from reality that there is no way to even converse with you outside of Religion and religious indoctrination. " Says the person who refers to science as religion and claims worshiping a god isn't religion. You have it backwards.

"Which, if not for our Dome would go up and up and be sucked right out into the vacuum of expanding gravity/vacuum/spacetime." Once again, the vacuum of space does not apply suction.

"which is facing the vacuum of space. I shown you the power of a vacuum lifting sheets of heavy marble, now imagine it sucking on paper, or thin air?" See above reply.

"So tell me then as to how it can "expand"? If there is no 'container' to your universe, then what is expanding?" The space between galaxies.

"a vacuum is some container lacking air and other gasses" A man made vacuum is a container. Outer space is not.

"So how do BB'ers know that their universe is expanding?" What is a BB'er?

"By observing stars circling around us that seem to be moving farther from each other?" The rate and direction at which each object is moving away from each of the other objects.

"Now to expand an already existing vacuum would be a miracle, but at a rate of 244,800 km per hour, that just defies reason." Why do you think it would require a miracle? And why does the rate sound unreasonable to you?

"Yes, which adds to your problem. You ever use a blowgun? Well that's exactly how everything on earth would fly off into oblivion if it were exposed to this Space-vacuum" See response about man made vacuums and space.

"The very atoms would be separated and scattered millions and billions and trillions of light years apart." The space between objects is expanding, not the objects themselves.

"That vacuum couldn't suck the atmosphere right off of earth?" No. The vacuum of space does not apply suction.

"that if the airlocks were opened on any of those ships, no one would get sucked out?" That's a common misconception. They aren't being sucked out, they're being pushed out by the pressure inside the structure.

"All this time I though a vacuum cleaner created a void of pressure which made the air and the dirt, sand, dust be sucked into the bag?" Same misconception. The pressure around the vacuum is pushing air, dirt, sand, and dust into the vacuum.

"according to you, those Astronauts are as safe as if they were swimming in a pool, right?" That's not what I said. Nor did I imply it.

"The air inside the ISS would remain, just as on earth since space-vacuum is different." No. The air would push outward due to pressure.

"Please forgive me, I did not know that NASA space vacuum does not have suction" I actually meant to say pressure instead of suction. I have edited that error.

"I guess this explains why NASA astronauts practice in NASA-pools" They use them because of the sensation of bouyancy is somewhat similar to weightlessness.

"I am truly sorry for any trollish taunting that you might THINK I was doing, it was NOT my intention, nor do I feel I was doing that." You were, you know you were, and it was your intention. It's obvious to anyone that has experience with trolls.

"Now if there was any sarcasm, it was in response to your impertinence, your complete disrespect of my intellect" You have done nothing to earn my respect. In fact, you have earned my disrespect.

"This is a debate, we are asked to prove our points by providing evidence" I have not asked for any evidence. I am capable of researching it on my own.

"Now look at your mock remark especially in your last response, where you say the vacuum of space does not have suction!?" That isn't a mock remark, it's a fact. Anyone that understands the physics behind vacuums is aware of that.

"with all due respect I'm sure you are aware that you are defending a lost cause" I am defending facts.

"people are waking up" As far as people who actually believe your arguments, they are being fooled.

"I understand why you are angry." Assuming someone's emotional status when they have not exhibited the emotion you claim is a childish tactic.

"We are nearing the end of WW3" World war 3 has not officially begun yet.

"people are being exterminated by the millions most almost identically as they were murdered in Concentration Camps." In what location?

"cannot tolerate any mention of God or the Bible." I do not debate the existence of a god. Therefore, it serves no purpose in my debates.

"So if you want to save face and quit now, I understand, because your pseudoscience will no longer defend you, or your Religious NASATANIC and 666CERN UN organization." A delusional remark.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

Hey @Evidence, you want to go do some ISS missions with me? Maybe we can borrow some of their cameras and video software. I don't think we'll make as much money as they do for them though.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/as-it-seeks-to-pare-costs-nasa-opens-its-historic-facilities-to-private-companies/

Oh yeah man, .. are you kidding? Here is our big chance thanks to people like you who took the excitement that we used to have watching space walks. Now when people hear on the News "Another exciting, and very dangerous NASA space walk, this time to change all four NASA decals outside the space station to the new NASATAN decals, .. tonight at 9:00!"   where with your F.E. Revelations people just go "Yawn, .. yep, another fake space walk. I rather  go outside and watch my grass grow!"
So yeah buddy, I got it all planned out! Look, what do you think?

First, we rent one of NASA employee saunas and go in there with the NASA cult suits (aka Space Suit), open the drain and let the water out, and pretend we got sucked into a black hole! All this while using the famous NASA fisheye lens cameras!
Next scene we appear in a parallel universe, sending back images of us doing synchronized-triple-inverse-roll-backflips, .. that will make those simple NASA backflips on a string that they made us watch for the past 10 years look like Geriatric-Olympics in comparison!
Oh wait, .. I think that was Geriatric-Olympics, take a look, starts from time 3:08



the only thing missing was a few people hold up the voting signs: (8), (9), (5) etc.
I mean really Erfisflat, if they passed raking in over a trillion dollars for this , I don't know how we could loose!? I mean we went through a black hole, and doing fancy synchronized-triple-inverse-roll-backflips just before we sign off for Pete sakes, people will love it!

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence

LogicVault said:

Evidence
"If I talked to you about Religion, then I would be talking to you about the BB-Evolution created imaginary universe, with a globe earth spinning, wobbling, expanding and spiraling out of control at 6.66 million m/p/s right smack into another imaginary galaxy called Andromeda, .. and Not about God." Statements like this is a good example of how it's obvious that you're trolling.

I gave you an example of Religious doctrine.

"God does not exist in Organized Religion, they can't afford to have anyone believe in God, only gods."

religion

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed

a particular system of faith and worship.

You still don't get it, .. personal God or gods are what you find in Religion. I shown you our Creator, who is outside of Religion. You will not find ONE Religion worshipping our Infinite Creator, instead, all Religions worship "deities who reside in the supernatural realm."

"Just because you chose a lie over God does not mean our Creator doesn't exist." I never said one did or did not exist. I said unless you can prove one exists, do not talk to me about it.

What more proof do you want besides scientific, philosophic, logical and obvious?

"You are so far removed from reality that there is no way to even converse with you outside of Religion and religious indoctrination. " Says the person who refers to science as religion and claims worshiping a god isn't religion. You have it backwards.

Big-Bang Evolution, quantum theory, space flight, parallel universes, time travel, special relativity, gravity, .. these are created by science fiction writers, and believed in and followed by Religious cults like snake-tongue NASA, and 666CERN
God is real, not the one in any of your Religions, like Sheva that 666CERN worships. You can believe in the truth that has been established by evidence with substance, religiously, there is a difference between being religious about the truth, and worshipping Religion -created doctrines, which expect people to accept it and believe it on blind faith. You see the difference?

"Which, if not for our Dome would go up and up and be sucked right out into the vacuum of expanding gravity/vacuum/spacetime." Once again, the vacuum of space does not apply suction.

So what you're saying is that if you put a lead ball in a vacuum chamber and suck out the air, the ball would still be covered in air, is that what you're saying? All you need to do now is prove it.
Here is what I mean about moronic Religious doctrines we are to accept on blind faith

How many times bigger is the earth than the moon?

Answer: 3.7 times larger

This is true, however the Earth is approximately 6 times more massive. (you see, now size don't matter, even though they claim that the moon is a chunk off of earth. This was because they needed to make the Earth heavier to make the gravity work. LOL unbelievable!?)

Explanation:

We think the Earth-Moon system formed from a collision several billion years ago. The moon took a disproportionately large quantity of the surface of the earth, which is less dense, and the collision left us with an unusually large, hot and active core. As a result the moon is less dense on average than the Earth, so whilst it is true the Earth is 3.7 times larger, it is significantly more massive. As a result our value of g is 9.81 ms2 whereas on the Moon it is approx. 1.6ms2

And they knew this before they claim to have set foot on the moon. But now that they walked on the moon, and took samples, well that just verified everything they knew about the moon for thousands of years to be exactly true.
Oh by the way, have you seen the moon rocks?
Here is the response of scientists who observed those rocks:
"LOL! .. umm, sorry, that just popped out of there, .. no, .. gulp, .. no other Comment, I need my job."

"which is facing the vacuum of space. I shown you the power of a vacuum lifting sheets of heavy marble, now imagine it sucking on paper, or thin air?"
See above reply.

That was an erroneous reply, because the fact is (in real science) when you expose air to a vacuum, you have osmosis. In your two identical rooms example where one room is a complete vacuum and the other with air, this would happen very fast.
Osmosis
a process by which molecules of a solvent tend to pass through a semipermeable membrane
from a less concentrated solution into a more concentrated one,
thus equalizing the concentrations on each side of the membrane.

Now if you were to expose your teeny-tiny earths atmosphere to your expanding space, that equalization would leave your globe a frozen airless waist land in seconds, along with any ground/dirt above any pockets of air, .. like through a blowgun!

"So tell me then as to how it can "expand"? If there is no 'container' to your universe, then what is expanding?"
The space between galaxies.

Thank you. So in other words, by actual scientific observation, space isn't expanding, only your galaxies are moving apart. Here is where your BB-Religion turns this distancing of two objects into some fabric, some real space fabric that your religion then can do what they want with it, .. like stretch it.

Hey buddy @Erfisflat do you want to "stretch space"? You get in your car, and I get in mine, and we'll drive off from each other in opposite direction for a few hundred miles, and by doing so we stretch space between us. Then, using special relativity, we'll roll it up and fold it like we would any other fabric, .. like a curtain, punch a black hole in it big enough for our cars to pass through, and wha-la! Instead of driving 100 miles, we just go through the hole, and be there in a second.

"a vacuum is some container lacking air and other gasses"
A man made vacuum is a container. Outer space is not.

I beg to differ:

https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html
The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.
(LOL, you see how they create space as an actual object?)
During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.

Now all you have to do is show something blow up, and suddenly inflate to the size of a golf ball, yet not have a container. Can you give us an example of such a thing?
"Look it got to the size of a golf ball, I know because I observed two grains of sand move away from each other at 0.2mph. 

And of course you can't, and I have debunked this many years ago, many time over.
Anyways, my point was that if watching two galaxies distance each other, then we should be able measure the size of the earth by watching two cars distance each other!? If the two distance 1 mile a minute, 60 miles an hour, how will that tell us how big that town, or city, or our Earth is?

Yet believe it or not my dear readers, that is exactly how the minds of BB-Evolutionist work. This is how they claim that space is real, and how it stretches, and how now they can fold it and walk back and forth on it! Totally ridiculous assumptions, and they call this 'science'!

"So how do BB'ers know that their universe is expanding?"
What is a BB'er?

Big-Bangers and Evo's, or Evolutionists. Oh yeah, you only know them by the name "scientists" right?

"By observing stars circling around us that seem to be moving farther from each other?"
The rate and direction at which each object is moving away from each of the other objects.

Stars come back to that same spot year after year for thousands of years, we have traveled by those stars, and still do. Besides, like I said above, two cars moving away from each other, no matter what rate will not tell you how big the earth is. Neither will two of your galaxies that you think are moving away from each other. Besides it's a lie. to give life to the Religious object "Spacetime". I proved to you in many ways that space is not real, just as time is not real. I can give you a thousand years and you will not know what to do with it other than use it in your Religion to travel into the future,.

"Now to expand an already existing vacuum would be a miracle, but at a rate of 244,800 km per hour, that just defies reason."
Why do you think it would require a miracle? And why does the rate sound unreasonable to you?

Two cars, or a hundred cars distancing from each other do not stretch space. If you can prove to us that all the cars in a city traveling in all different directions are actually "stretching space", by all means prove it?
If cars don't stretch space, then neither do your galaxies. But I'm waiting for evidence, this I have to see!?

"Yes, which adds to your problem. You ever use a blowgun? Well that's exactly how everything on earth would fly off into oblivion if it were exposed to this Space-vacuum"
See response about man made vacuums and space.

I'm still waiting for you to show the difference between NASA space-vacuum and a vacuum we can make in a vacuum chamber?
You do know that NASA spent billions on a huge vacuum chamber to do space tests in right? And they switched to the pools, .. so are you now saying that space vacuum is like a pool full of water?

"The very atoms would be separated and scattered millions and billions and trillions of light years apart."
The space between objects is expanding, not the objects themselves.

, .. you just said that your space is expanding because the galaxies are distancing each other. So once you say space expands because of the objects expanding, and now you say the opposite.

Why don't you read up on your Big Bang story, as to what was happening with those quantum particles in those few millionth and billionth of a trillionth seconds after the birth of your universe?
The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Are you now claiming that initially NASA-BB-space did not have any particles in it? That there was this speck of "space with gravity" that popped out of nothing, got denser and hotter and BANG, it exploded to infinite size, and then started to create mass like stars and planets? Is this what you want to tell me, because I will cut and paste it and send it to CERN for verification!

"That vacuum couldn't suck the atmosphere right off of earth?"
No. The vacuum of space does not apply suction.

So again, ..  if they opened the windows of the ISS, the air inside would remain, .. is this what you're telling me? That all the Astronauts would have to do is put a fishbowl over their heads with air in it, and could backflip out the ISS and the air in the fishbowl would remain?

"that if the airlocks were opened on any of those ships, no one would get sucked out?"
That's a common misconception. They aren't being sucked out, they're being pushed out by the pressure inside the structure.

OH, .. I understand now, wait till I explain this to my son, he is really good in math:  "Son, our vacuum cleaner is not really creating a suction, but the atmosphere in our room is actually pushing the dust from the carpet up passed the fan, which in turn spins the motor (for whatever reason) and that's how the dust ends up in the bag!"

"All this time I though a vacuum cleaner created a void of pressure which made the air and the dirt, sand, dust be sucked into the bag?"
Same misconception. The pressure around the vacuum is pushing air, dirt, sand, and dust into the vacuum.

I just read this next line after I responded above, .. so you are actually saying what I was going to tell my son, lol. So it's free energy, we don't need to spend money on electricity, and on a motor to create a vacuum, the atmospheric pressure around the vacuum is going to push the air, dirt, sand, and dust into the vacuum regardless.
Recently I just found out that the Airbus actually runs on pressurized air, not fuel, .. but this carpet vacuum thing is truly a Mastercard moment.

"according to you, those Astronauts are as safe as if they were swimming in a pool, right?"
That's not what I said. Nor did I imply it.

Yes, you definitely implied it, and continue to do so. Read above.

"The air inside the ISS would remain, just as on earth since space-vacuum is different."
No. The air would push outward due to pressure.

What pressure???? The ISS scientists are not in any pressure. They can come back to earth, open the doors and nothing would happen. Could the vacuum of your imaginary expanding space have anything to do with creating this pressure where there was none? You know, like the vacuum motor and blade are doing, .. creating suction!?

"Please forgive me, I did not know that NASA space vacuum does not have suction" I actually meant to say pressure instead of suction. I have edited that error.

No problem, only you are still denying the vacuum. It doesn't matter if the Big-Bang creates it, or a motor with a fan, or a Jet engine, the vacuum is created and exists as a "vacuum".

"I guess this explains why NASA astronauts practice in NASA-pools"
They use them because of the sensation of bouyancy is somewhat similar to weightlessness.

My lord, is that the only problem in space, weightlessness? Well I guess with such accommodating as you explain NASA-space to be, water pressure, or space vacuum must be all the same. So according to NASA scientists, they figure; hey, space is "full of vacuum", and the NASA-pool is "Full of Water", .. so why not practice in the pool, right?

<to be continued>

Evidence

<continued>

@LogicVault ;
Evidence said: "I am truly sorry for any trollish taunting that you might THINK I was doing, it was NOT my intention, nor do I feel I was doing that."
You were, you know you were, and it was your intention. It's obvious to anyone that has experience with trolls.


I KNOW you are angry because you are smart enough to know, that I know the tricks and lies that are the pillars of both the Big Bang theory, and the degrading, dehumanizing Evolution theory which are nowhere even close to any real scientific theory. So unless you can twist what I say, or pretend you don't understand the evidence that I provided, because these stories have been indoctrinated into peoples minds them believing it's science, and that you are supposedly smart in believing this, you feel that you will look foolish in actuallybelieving in such unproven unscientific illogical gibberish and not being able to defend it.

About calling me a Troll:

Troll-

Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

This sense of both the noun and the verb "troll" is associated with Internet discourse, but also has been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, the mass media have used "troll" to mean "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families".[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works, such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing persons online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments

OK let's see now: is a person who sows discord on the internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people,
Show how I sow discord by starting quarrels? I responded to an O.P. in which you responded back, multiple times. Now this is a debate, if you try to pass off lies as scientific evidence, and I prove to you beyond your ability to prove me wrong, that those are in fact blatant lies, and you get upset, that was not my intention to upset you, but to reveal that you purposefully lie by twisting words and using new Big-Bang and Evolutions Religions definitions that are based on never observed science fiction stories to try to defend your belief. Yes, belief, based on blind faith.
So I'm sorry I upset you with the truth which I back up with evidence.

Next, show me where I posted inflammatory, extraneous or off topic messages in an  online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog)  with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement?

I explained how space is not something real that you can fold like a blanket, drill or use magic to put a hole in it and travel through it, nor does it stretch because two galaxies (which are stars, like sand on the seashore, or birds flocking together or away from each other) will expand.
 So just because in your imaginary galaxies are thought to be moving apart, doesn't prove the space, or whatever medium they are in is expanding. I told you that two cars distancing from each other does not mean that the space on earth is now expanding. So far, you have not refuted these claims, and because you know well that scientifically there is no way you can, so your upset, calling me and others here Trolls.

So unless you can point out all the places in our debate that I was acting like an Internet Troll, I will ask you to please recant your accusation?

This goes for the Topic on hand "Is space fake?", I claim the word we use to describe the expanse between things we call space, but it is definitely not real, just as time isn't.

Now I will give you 666 cubic feet of space, and 100 years of time, now please show me how you can stretch it, or use it in any way, shape or form?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"I gave you an example of Religious doctrine." No, you referred to science and called it religion.

"personal God or gods are what you find in Religion. I shown you our Creator" Which would be a god. You are claiming to believe in a creator. That is a god and therefore religion. According to your statements, you personally believe we were created by an intelligent entity. That is religion. Do not play , it only makes you look .

"You will not find ONE Religion worshipping our Infinite Creator" Many religions believe in an infinite creator. Whether the one you believe in is the same as theirs, it's still the same concept. You believe in a god. That's still religion.

"What more proof do you want besides scientific, philosophic, logical and obvious?" None of those prove or disprove a god. The only being that can prove a god is that god. Until a god shows itself to us, it can not be proven.

"Big-Bang Evolution, quantum theory, space flight, parallel universes, time travel, special relativity, gravity, .. these are created by science fiction writers, and believed in and followed by Religious cults like snake-tongue NASA, and 666CERN" Theories like those are created by scientists, not book writers. Stop warping words. It only shows how you're trolling. Also, NASA is a government funded program designed to make discoveries, not trick you into drinking poisoned kool-aid. Calling it a cult just makes you look more like a conspiracy theorist. And once again, is 666CERN? Speak proper English and knock it off with the childish insult names. I have no idea what group you're talking about when you say 666CERN. Act like an adult and say the actual name.

"God is real, not the one in any of your Religions" Any god is religion. Don't play , it only makes you look..... nvm.

"like Sheva that 666CERN worships." I already explained to you what SHIVA is. Stop playing .

"You can believe in the truth that has been established by evidence with substance" I do, it's called a round Earth and space around it.

"religiously, there is a difference between being religious about the truth, and worshipping Religion -created doctrines" Stop pretending to not understand what religion means. You know very well that believing in any intelligent creator of humanity or our environment is religion.

"So what you're saying is that if you put a lead ball in a vacuum chamber and suck out the air, the ball would still be covered in air, is that what you're saying?" Nope. Not even close to what I said. Though, if that ball had a gravitation pull, it would hold some air to it. Just like Earth does. Here's an idea to show the concept of how it works: Bolt a magnet to the floor. Place a small piece of steel on that magnet. Now run a vacuum cleaner across that steel. Notice how that magnet holds that steel in place regardless of the vacuum?

"Here is what I mean about moronic Religious doctrines we are to accept on blind faith" Stop using the word religion incorrectly. It only makes you look like a psycho when you do it so often.

"How many times bigger is the earth than the moon?
Answer: 3.7 times larger
This is true, however the Earth is approximately 6 times more massive." Large and massive essentially are synonyms. Large, massive, huge, gigantic, enormous, immense, giant, etc. They all mean big. You basically just said "Earth is 3.7 times bigger than the moon but Earth is 6 time bigger than the moon". Was you trying to say "dense". Density would affect gravity.

I'm going to ignore your statement about humans on the moon because I don't believe it happened. And I've seen you claim you don't either. So, leave that out next time.

"That was an erroneous reply, because the fact is (in real science) when you expose air to a vacuum, you have osmosis." You need to look up osmosis. You used it incorrectly.

"Osmosis
a process by which molecules of a solvent tend to pass through a semipermeable membrane
from a less concentrated solution into a more concentrated one,
thus equalizing the concentrations on each side of the membrane." Exactly why your example doesn't work. Based on that definition, space (the less concentrated solution) would enter our atmosphere (the more concentrated solution). That goes against your claim of space sucking away our atmosphere.

"Now if you were to expose your teeny-tiny earths atmosphere to your expanding space, that equalization would leave your globe a frozen airless waist land in seconds, along with any ground/dirt above any pockets of air, .. like through a blowgun!" Not according to osmosis, which you tried to use. It would be the exact opposite.

"Thank you. So in other words, by actual scientific observation, space isn't expanding, only your galaxies are moving apart. Here is where your BB-Religion turns this distancing of two objects into some fabric, some real space fabric that your religion then can do what they want with it, .. like stretch it." First of all, every time you say "BB-religion" I can tell it's an insult, but no clue what insult you're trying to make. Do you realize that using flattard developed insults do not make any sense to normal people? You might as well just say I smell like purple. It makes no sense. Second, galaxies moving apart means the space between them is expanding.

"I beg to differ" Well keep on begging, cause you're wrong.

"Now all you have to do is show something blow up, and suddenly inflate to the size of a golf ball, yet not have a container. Can you give us an example of such a thing?
"Look it got to the size of a golf ball, I know because I observed two grains of sand move away from each other at 0.2mph." That does not equate to space. Space is infinite, the objects within it are finite. Space is infinite in all directions. There is no border, limit, container, etc. Infinity has no container.

At this point, I have to sleep for work. I'll finish with your troll remarks tomorrow.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"I gave you an example of Religious doctrine." No, you referred to science and called it religion.

"personal God or gods are what you find in Religion. I shown you our Creator" Which would be a god. You are claiming to believe in a creator. That is a god and therefore religion. According to your statements, you personally believe we were created by an intelligent entity. That is religion. Do not play , it only makes you look .

"You will not find ONE Religion worshipping our Infinite Creator" Many religions believe in an infinite creator. Whether the one you believe in is the same as theirs, it's still the same concept. You believe in a god. That's still religion.

"What more proof do you want besides scientific, philosophic, logical and obvious?" None of those prove or disprove a god. The only being that can prove a god is that god. Until a god shows itself to us, it can not be proven.

"Big-Bang Evolution, quantum theory, space flight, parallel universes, time travel, special relativity, gravity, .. these are created by science fiction writers, and believed in and followed by Religious cults like snake-tongue NASA, and 666CERN" Theories like those are created by scientists, not book writers. Stop warping words. It only shows how you're trolling. Also, NASA is a government funded program designed to make discoveries, not trick you into drinking poisoned kool-aid. Calling it a cult just makes you look more like a conspiracy theorist. And once again, is 666CERN? Speak proper English and knock it off with the childish insult names. I have no idea what group you're talking about when you say 666CERN. Act like an adult and say the actual name.

"God is real, not the one in any of your Religions" Any god is religion. Don't play , it only makes you look..... nvm.

"like Sheva that 666CERN worships." I already explained to you what SHIVA is. Stop playing .

"You can believe in the truth that has been established by evidence with substance" I do, it's called a round Earth and space around it.

"religiously, there is a difference between being religious about the truth, and worshipping Religion -created doctrines" Stop pretending to not understand what religion means. You know very well that believing in any intelligent creator of humanity or our environment is religion.

"So what you're saying is that if you put a lead ball in a vacuum chamber and suck out the air, the ball would still be covered in air, is that what you're saying?" Nope. Not even close to what I said. Though, if that ball had a gravitation pull, it would hold some air to it. Just like Earth does. Here's an idea to show the concept of how it works: Bolt a magnet to the floor. Place a small piece of steel on that magnet. Now run a vacuum cleaner across that steel. Notice how that magnet holds that steel in place regardless of the vacuum?

"Here is what I mean about moronic Religious doctrines we are to accept on blind faith" Stop using the word religion incorrectly. It only makes you look like a psycho when you do it so often.

"How many times bigger is the earth than the moon?
Answer: 3.7 times larger
This is true, however the Earth is approximately 6 times more massive." Large and massive essentially are synonyms. Large, massive, huge, gigantic, enormous, immense, giant, etc. They all mean big. You basically just said "Earth is 3.7 times bigger than the moon but Earth is 6 time bigger than the moon". Was you trying to say "dense". Density would affect gravity.

I'm going to ignore your statement about humans on the moon because I don't believe it happened. And I've seen you claim you don't either. So, leave that out next time.

"That was an erroneous reply, because the fact is (in real science) when you expose air to a vacuum, you have osmosis." You need to look up osmosis. You used it incorrectly.

"Osmosis
a process by which molecules of a solvent tend to pass through a semipermeable membrane
from a less concentrated solution into a more concentrated one,
thus equalizing the concentrations on each side of the membrane." Exactly why your example doesn't work. Based on that definition, space (the less concentrated solution) would enter our atmosphere (the more concentrated solution). That goes against your claim of space sucking away our atmosphere.

"Now if you were to expose your teeny-tiny earths atmosphere to your expanding space, that equalization would leave your globe a frozen airless waist land in seconds, along with any ground/dirt above any pockets of air, .. like through a blowgun!" Not according to osmosis, which you tried to use. It would be the exact opposite.

"Thank you. So in other words, by actual scientific observation, space isn't expanding, only your galaxies are moving apart. Here is where your BB-Religion turns this distancing of two objects into some fabric, some real space fabric that your religion then can do what they want with it, .. like stretch it." First of all, every time you say "BB-religion" I can tell it's an insult, but no clue what insult you're trying to make. Do you realize that using flattard developed insults do not make any sense to normal people? You might as well just say I smell like purple. It makes no sense. Second, galaxies moving apart means the space between them is expanding.

"I beg to differ" Well keep on begging, cause you're wrong.

"Now all you have to do is show something blow up, and suddenly inflate to the size of a golf ball, yet not have a container. Can you give us an example of such a thing?
"Look it got to the size of a golf ball, I know because I observed two grains of sand move away from each other at 0.2mph." That does not equate to space. Space is infinite, the objects within it are finite. Space is infinite in all directions. There is no border, limit, container, etc. Infinity has no container.

At this point, I have to sleep for work. I'll finish with your troll remarks tomorrow.

I'm waiting for actual rebuttals, what I get is the same response no matter how many different ways, how many different facts I shown you that go against these Big Bang hypotheses.
And I will stop mentioning your Religion, OK?
Anyways just this;
 
@LogicVault said: Second, galaxies moving apart means the space between them is expanding.

Which I gave examples of, like saying "cars moving apart means the highway between them is expanding, or birds moving apart means the space between them, in this case the air, is expanding."

If you're willing to debate, you will have to decide to be serious, and use science, and NOT science fiction. Only in Science-fiction can anyone stretch space by moving two objects away from each other.

I mean just think about it, if fish swimming away from each other causes the oceans to expand, we would of hit your Andromeda galaxy millions and billions of years ago!

LogicVault

@Evidence
"And I will stop mentioning your Religion, OK?" Another troll comment.

"Which I gave examples of, like saying "cars moving apart means the highway between them is expanding, or birds moving apart means the space between them, in this case the air, is expanding."" No, air isn't expanding. Outer space is. Outer space is not air.

"If you're willing to debate, you will have to decide to be serious, and use science, and NOT science fiction." Exact same thing I could say to you. The only difference is I'm the one using real science.

"Only in Science-fiction can anyone stretch space by moving two objects away from each other." Only if you keep using the word stretch. Expand and stretch do not mean the same thing in this context.

"I mean just think about it, if fish swimming away from each other causes the oceans to expand, we would of hit your Andromeda galaxy millions and billions of years ago!" Not the same thing as outer space expanding. You are comparing apples and oranges.

EmeryPearson

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

"The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

"You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

"We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

"But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

"Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

"Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

"I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

"There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

"You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

@EmeryPearson Evidence -  "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "
I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

I'm measuring the expanse of two gold nuggets in a rock, not space. You can't measure space itself, how many times do we have to go over this?

"Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running. No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."
This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

The clock turns, I could be just checking if I have the gears in there correctly? Are you saying that this mechanism I call a clock can create "time"? So a slow, or a fast clock can create different lengths of time, .. interesting!?

"Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."
If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

In your BB-Vacuum-Universe nothing is static, everything is moving, twirling, expanding, which is why the Hafele and Keating time dilation experiment is so hilarious!

And like NASA's CGI cartoons of planets in the galaxies millions and billions of light years away that are stretching on this spandex Spacetime Fabric, the only place an electron moving in relation to its nucleus is in those cartoons. Don't give me things that no one has ever observed, and only exist in science fiction stories! I gave you actual events, with real questions, like: "Why would one of the two clocks distancing from one another be effected by this "time dilation"? I'm questioning real events, and their claims.
My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space".

"I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"
This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!
Here is another scenario, Hafele and Keating are sitting on the ground in their aircraft, with their atomic clock, and the atomic clock on the Base is traveling away from them on a truck. the truck then stops as the plane with Hafele and Keating take off without breaking the distancing of the two clocks.
Again, tell me why, or what would make one of the atomic clocks run slower?

"There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "
How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

And what's causing or creating speed, or space/distance or time? Do you think the clock and the tape measure is creating this time and speed?
Time, space, speed, feet, mile, long, short are not "things", nor can they have an effect on anything, or anyone. The clock will not create time, and that imaginary time will not have an effect on either clocks, or Hafele and Keating. A tape measure will not create space. The air (or water, or whatever) between the two walls do that.

"You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"
I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

I'm measuring events taking place, not measuring time itself. Tell me how you measure time? Not a car speeding, or pointing to revolutions on the hands on your watch, but time itself, .. how would you measure time, please show me?

"I'm measuring the expanse of two gold nuggets in a rock, not space. You can't measure space itself, how many times do we have to go over this?"

This is incorrect. Your measuring the space between them. How many times must I correct you?

"The clock turns, I could be just checking if I have the gears in there correctly? Are you saying that this mechanism I call a clock can create "time"? So a slow, or a fast clock can create different lengths of time, .. interesting!?"

This is an admittance that you measure time. You would not be able to perceive a clock going faster or slower unless you had a measure to compare it to.

"In your BB-Vacuum-Universe nothing is static, everything is moving, twirling, expanding, which is why the Hafele and Keating time dilation experiment is so hilarious!"

This is incorrect, everything is static within reference to itself. 

"My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space"."

Then your claim makes little sense, as you've measured space and time multiple times, admittedly so. This is a self-defeating premise.

"No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!"

Which describes two inertial frames. Thank you for this concession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference.

"And what's causing or creating speed, or space/distance or time? Do you think the clock and the tape measure is creating this time and speed?"

So you believe time and space to be created. So you admit they exist. This should wrap up your argument, or lack thereof.

"I'm measuring events taking place, not measuring time itself. Tell me how you measure time? Not a car speeding, or pointing to revolutions on the hands on your watch, but time itself, .. how would you measure time, please show me?"

I would measure time as you do, with clocks. This is how you chose to measure time, it's likely the best example, as your most familiar with it. And as your not limiting your use of clocks, it makes little sense that I would have to.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"And I will stop mentioning your Religion, OK?" Another troll comment.

"Which I gave examples of, like saying "cars moving apart means the highway between them is expanding, or birds moving apart means the space between them, in this case the air, is expanding."" No, air isn't expanding. Outer space is. Outer space is not air.

"If you're willing to debate, you will have to decide to be serious, and use science, and NOT science fiction." Exact same thing I could say to you. The only difference is I'm the one using real science.

"Only in Science-fiction can anyone stretch space by moving two objects away from each other." Only if you keep using the word stretch. Expand and stretch do not mean the same thing in this context.

"I mean just think about it, if fish swimming away from each other causes the oceans to expand, we would of hit your Andromeda galaxy millions and billions of years ago!" Not the same thing as outer space expanding. You are comparing apples and oranges.

@LogicVault ;
Evidence - "Which I gave examples of, like saying "cars moving apart means the highway between them is expanding, or birds moving apart means the space between them, in this case the air, is expanding.""
No, air isn't expanding. Outer space is. Outer space is not air.

And you call this a scientific answer, .. that some imaginary galaxies in NASA outer space moving away from each other are expanding your "outer space"??

"Only in Science-fiction can anyone stretch space by moving two objects away from each other."
Only if you keep using the word stretch. Expand and stretch do not mean the same thing in this context.

You guys claim that your Spacetime-fabric is stretching by your galaxies moving apart.
With the sun, you claim that your Spacetime-fabric has this indentation that makes god-planets like Jupiter roll around the sun, .. only neither in reality



.. or in a computer simulation does this trick work. In both cases the planets crash into the sun right after the moons crash into the planets. Do you have any scientific examples that actually work?

I mean like a river with flood, water can expand it's banks, but how do you expand a vacuum?
Oh yeah, .. the magical gravity.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

"The space and time in Relativity, or in any use of it in the Big-Bang theory is as meaningless as NASA's photos of earth from space."

If this was the case, events would be unable to proceed or precede each other. This simple fact is hard evidence for the existence of time.

"You can't measure space, only the expanse between things, like gold nuggets in a rock, or the expanse between walls. "

You're describing space. If there is an expanse between things, there's space. If there are Gold nuggets, they require space to occupy. 

"We are NOT measuring "space", but distances or the expanse between real things."

This is space, attempting to use alternate adjectives to describe space, doesn't make it not so.

"But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "

I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

"Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running.No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."

This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

"Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."

If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

"I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"

This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

"There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "

How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

"You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"

I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

@EmeryPearson Evidence -  "But since you defend NASA and the Big-Bang story, you can tell us here how you measure space itself? "
I don't need NASA for this, you've done it for me. You stated you can measure two inches between gold nuggets. You are claiming to be able to measure space. I don't need NASA to confirm for me, what you are willing to do so yourself.

I'm measuring the expanse of two gold nuggets in a rock, not space. You can't measure space itself, how many times do we have to go over this?

"Time is either a clock turning, or us counting measuring events happening, like a car speeding down the road, or a man running. No one but NASA, CERN and Carl Sagan can measure time itself."
This is a contradiction. If a clock turns, your measuring time. If you calculating average speed, you're measuring time. If these things do occur as your claim to, you're admitting to the existence of time. NASA, CERN, or Carl Sagan are unnecessary, as you readily admit this already.

The clock turns, I could be just checking if I have the gears in there correctly? Are you saying that this mechanism I call a clock can create "time"? So a slow, or a fast clock can create different lengths of time, .. interesting!?

"Time itself doesn't exist, It's when we use measuring equipment like mechanical, ot electronic clocks to measure events is what we call "time". No one measures time itself."
If said time didn't exist, you couldn't do any of this. It's independent of your perceived events, for instance, an electron is still moving in relation to its nucleus regardless if everything appears static. You are measuring time constantly as you make these claims.

In your BB-Vacuum-Universe nothing is static, everything is moving, twirling, expanding, which is why the Hafele and Keating time dilation experiment is so hilarious!

And like NASA's CGI cartoons of planets in the galaxies millions and billions of light years away that are stretching on this spandex Spacetime Fabric, the only place an electron moving in relation to its nucleus is in those cartoons. Don't give me things that no one has ever observed, and only exist in science fiction stories! I gave you actual events, with real questions, like: "Why would one of the two clocks distancing from one another be effected by this "time dilation"? I'm questioning real events, and their claims.
My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space".

"I didn't say "two objects moving away from each other" and you know it, I said two objects "distancing from each other"
This is irrelevant. Distancing, moving, your still describing two inertial frames.

No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!
Here is another scenario, Hafele and Keating are sitting on the ground in their aircraft, with their atomic clock, and the atomic clock on the Base is traveling away from them on a truck. the truck then stops as the plane with Hafele and Keating take off without breaking the distancing of the two clocks.
Again, tell me why, or what would make one of the atomic clocks run slower?

"There you go, now look, ..  what are you measuring? You just said it: "the speed of a car", .. NOT "time"! "
How do 'you' describe speed? Unit of distance per Unit of Time. This is a contradiction. If I am not measuring time, then I am not measuring speed either.

And what's causing or creating speed, or space/distance or time? Do you think the clock and the tape measure is creating this time and speed?
Time, space, speed, feet, mile, long, short are not "things", nor can they have an effect on anything, or anyone. The clock will not create time, and that imaginary time will not have an effect on either clocks, or Hafele and Keating. A tape measure will not create space. The air (or water, or whatever) between the two walls do that.

"You don't have to answer, .. NASsssA says it all!"
I don't need NASA, I have you. Your consistently measuring time throughout this debate, defeating your premise.

I'm measuring events taking place, not measuring time itself. Tell me how you measure time? Not a car speeding, or pointing to revolutions on the hands on your watch, but time itself, .. how would you measure time, please show me?

"I'm measuring the expanse of two gold nuggets in a rock, not space. You can't measure space itself, how many times do we have to go over this?"

This is incorrect. Your measuring the space between them. How many times must I correct you?


"The clock turns, I could be just checking if I have the gears in there correctly? Are you saying that this mechanism I call a clock can create "time"? So a slow, or a fast clock can create different lengths of time, .. interesting!?"

This is an admittance that you measure time. You would not be able to perceive a clock going faster or slower unless you had a measure to compare it to.

"In your BB-Vacuum-Universe nothing is static, everything is moving, twirling, expanding, which is why the Hafele and Keating time dilation experiment is so hilarious!"

This is incorrect, everything is static within reference to itself. 

"My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space"."

Then your claim makes little sense, as you've measured space and time multiple times, admittedly so. This is a self-defeating premise.

"No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!"

Which describes two inertial frames. Thank you for this concession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference.

"And what's causing or creating speed, or space/distance or time? Do you think the clock and the tape measure is creating this time and speed?"

So you believe time and space to be created. So you admit they exist. This should wrap up your argument, or lack thereof.

"I'm measuring events taking place, not measuring time itself. Tell me how you measure time? Not a car speeding, or pointing to revolutions on the hands on your watch, but time itself, .. how would you measure time, please show me?"

I would measure time as you do, with clocks. This is how you chose to measure time, it's likely the best example, as your most familiar with it. And as your not limiting your use of clocks, it makes little sense that I would have to.

@EmeryPearson -  This is incorrect. Your measuring the space between them. How many times must I correct you?

No, I'm measuring the rock between them, we just call it space, and you know it.

- This is an admittance that you measure time. You would not be able to perceive a clock going faster or slower unless you had a measure to compare it to.

Yes I could, to another mechanism with gears, or the sun traveling around our Flat Earth. We just call it "time". I asked you: What could you do if I gave you a hundred years of time?

- This is incorrect, everything is static within reference to itself.

 So where do you get one clock in the plane dilating and not the one on the ground??

"My claim is from observation, which is that "you cannot measure time itself because it's not real." The same way you cannot measure space itself, because it too doesn't exist on its own. We call measuring the air between two walls at 10 feet apart with a tape measure "space"."
- Then your claim makes little sense, as you've measured space and time multiple times, admittedly so. This is a self-defeating premise.

Also, don't forget that I measured, and cut 2 feet off of a 2X4, now tell me which can you use, the 2X4 or the 2 feet? Time, space, feet, miles etc. don't exist, but clocks, objects like two telephone poles, and cars moving from one town to another exist.

"No I'm not, one clock is standing still, but the distancing of the two clocks continue!"
Which describes two inertial frames. Thank you for this concession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference.

I see you gave up on actually debating! I explained this a dozen times to you, and you revert back to NASA magical techniques. I can give you a dozen examples of things distancing each other yet not moving in their inertial frames, .. only I doubt that you could understand it.

So my friend @Pogue, this concludes my part in this debate on your: "Is Space Fake?" OP, and as you can see, space is not real. It is the word we use to describe the distance between object in any  medium; which could be planes in the air, fish in the water, gold nuggets in a rock, and knots in wood and so on. So YES space, ESPECIALLY as in "outer-space" is as fake as the claims in science fiction comic books.

.. and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening and good night!

LogicVault

@Evidence
"And you call this a scientific answer, .. that some imaginary galaxies in NASA outer space moving away from each other are expanding your "outer space"??" Place two objects on a table. Slide either one away from the other or both away from each other. The space between them just expanded. Not the air. Not the objects. The space.

"You guys claim that your Spacetime-fabric is stretching by your galaxies moving apart." Once again, EXPANDING. Not stretching. There's a difference.

"With the sun, you claim that your Spacetime-fabric has this indentation that makes god-planets like Jupiter roll around the sun, .. only neither in reality" That video is not even close to a perfect representation of how gravity works.

"In both cases the planets crash into the sun right after the moons crash into the planets." Neither case represents exactly how gravity works.

[Deleted User]

Pogue said:

Many people on youtube think space is fake. I want evidence that proves space is fake. 

CONSPIRACY THEORISTS 

MisterMan

THERE ARE NO WAY THAT MANY FIREFLIES EXIST TO MAKE SO MANY STARS PROVE ME WRONG

JGXdebatePRO

I believe this is absolutely ridiculous and flies in the face of great scientists' discoveries. There is more than enough to fill a bath full of evidence on why space is real. The premonition is blatantly ridiculous.