[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by DavidRalphsky

Gravity is sort of a disturbance in space, wherein an object displaces space around it. For an analogy, imagine a sheet of cloth. Now poke a pencil through the cloth. The cloth will bunch up around the pencil and apply pressure to it. The bigger the pencil, the more cloth it displaces, and the more pressure built up. That's why more dense objects have more gravity.

That would produce a repulsive effect. Additionally a pencil would displace the same amount of cloth whether it was made from expanded lithium or solid hassium. Perhaps according to the "science" you're explaining if the pencil were dense enough, made from a bit of neutron star say, it would suck the cloth in. According to your model that would be anti-gravity wouldn't it? This often happens when people try explaining the science to me. I get rather confused. Because at other times I'm told that matter is made up of atoms which are only 0.0000000000001% "particles" the rest being void; the particles are quantised and distributed across weakly or strongly interacting "probability fields" so most of the time the particles aren't there at all for any given location.

You might as well say that the process giving rise to particles in three dimensions sucks in space and concentrates radiation to flit around (as a particle) inside some invisible dimension equal to an exact multiple of its wavelength. The curling-up mechanism producing those dimensions would leave a void behind it but, since nature abhors a vacuum, instead space gets "stretched" and we encounter different amounts of stretching at different locations across the resulting gravitational field. This would be about as much the exact opposite of your suggestion as one could imagine but imagining it wasn't very difficult. Therefore it should be quite easy for you to explain your model.

This is coming towards the edge of scientific knowledge, and I'm happy you want to know. The universe is expanding due to something called "dark matter," of which not much is known. We know it exists, because of Fritz Zwicky's work and NASA's experiments.

I must say I was rather sceptical so had a look at NASA's site as is usually a good idea before announcing what it says. The universe is expanding, they say, because of dark energy. Dark matter is something else which interacts gravitationally. Of course they really just checked their sums, found a 95% error and went off all "We have just discovered that 95% of the universe is undetectable!" but wouldn't you know it someone detected a gravitational shock wave that could only have been caused if, wait for it this is the biggee, SOMETHING UNDETECTABLE WAS INTERACTING GRAVITATIONALLY so poof went 27 percentiles leaving a universe 5% matter (basically the visible 3D universe) and 68% dark energy, the latter being responsible for inflation. If you believe them. more precise figures here • dumbed down version here (recommended)

Basically, we're not really sure right now.

Yeah this stuff is really hard to understand, and a lot of it is unknown. There's just not enough data at the moment to come to any satisfying conclusions.

Yes. One "problem" they use as a get-out is that data are coming faster than current computing technology can accommodate. One topical example would be hypernova events[sic] having energy bursts equal to the difference between the theoretical neutron state and quark state of the star. Once the initial supernova has blasted off some dust and the dust has dissipated a good estimate of the energy released in the hypernova can be made, they prate. And it seems to equal the difference between neutron and quark energy densities honestly they just make it up as they go along almost exactly BUT they can't handle the data. Too much coming in too fast and too suddenly.

Prep: what is SN2006gy?

So if they're not Christians, their studies cannot be trusted?

There's a catholic near here who studied how to grow lemons. He has thousands of the things. Very good at growing citrus fruit. Obviously he's not any sort of Christian but what he learned doesn't seem to contradict The Bible on lemons. But when you study something and find that your results contradict reality, described in detail by God in The Bible, it's time for a reality check. When these "scientists" attempt that they get it wrong. Like, wronger than wrong. The most wrong anyone ever was. But still they persist. What they teach does contradict The Bible on just about every level, exactly what you'd expect from a false god. Is this just a coincidence?

Or is it a plot to expose God's answers as ignorance, the most ignorant anyone ever was, get rid of His influence and eliminate Jesus from the world forever? That would NOT be an accident and I think the answer is obvious. People who are undecided need to make a choice.

JOSHUA 24 . KJV . look up
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;