Do you think that things like the expansion of the Universe cannot or have not been tested? Or that we lack the capability to test it?

Because we do test it.

^^^ which begs the question, what is the Universe expanding into?

It's not. Again, the balloon example. The balloon universe is 2-dimensional, the surface of the balloon is the ENTIRETY of that Universe. There is nothing but the surface of that balloon, it is everything. Yet, it is expanding, right? It's not expanding into anything, because the entire universe is right there on the surface of that balloon, yet it expands.

That's because a 2D universe can expand it 3 dimensions. It does NOT mean that it's a 3D universe, it means it's a 2D universe, mathematically expanding in an extra dimension. The math doesn't care about such things, there is a whole branch of calculus that takes place in an N-dimension universe, where N is unlimited.

WE are a 3D Universe, wrapped around in another dimension, and expanding according to that dimension. The entirety of our 3D Universe exists now, before and future, and is expanding, but not into anything.

And... Who's universe is decreasing to make room for our overly aggressive universe taking it's turf.

See my early post in the thread for the answer to that.

To make things even more complicated,
Superstring theory suggests at least 10 dimensional Space-time
M Theory suggests 11
Bosonic Sting Theory suggests 26

One of the greatest things the Hubble telescope found was the red shift of far away galaxies. The universe expansion is increasing, and that means an input of energy. That leads to "dark energy" and we have yet to be able to fine any way to detect dark energy. It seems to be a never ending rabbit hole of new discoveries, and learning we have so much more to learn.

And Dark matter is another total mystery.

the NOT YET

REALLY NOTHING

THE SPACE IS GROWING
THE STUFF IS NOT GROWING

churchies do NOT like it but they are so wrong about everything it doesNOT matter :rolleyes:

What if the Big Bang is the result of a multiverse collision from 2 or more dimensions?

This is the stuff that makes my mind boggle. How could ALL of the material in the universe have been contained in what amounts to a singularity? Sure, suspend everything we know about physics and maybe then it might be possible.

I forget where I read this but it stated that miniaturization has a physical limit due to the immutable distance between an electron and its' nucleus. So for the Big Bang to be possible intra-nuclear forces would need to be set aside for such dense packing to occur.

Wait, you say that sub atomic particles didn't exist prior to the Big Bang so our physical laws don't apply. Well, then there is no way to explain how such a condition could occur.

So, Shaun may be on to something. I need more coffee.

MOND modified newtonian dynamics. passes another test... can explain fuilly the CMB. another step towards discarding the need for dark matter to explain galactic dynamics...

https://xnewsnet.com/the-new-mond-theory-is-able-to-take-into-account-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

Huh scalars and vectors working together somehow. Correct or no that's some out of the box thinking.

The mark of a strong theory: It can a priori predict a completely unknown and unseen phenomenon, which is then discovered and shown to follow perfectly. Positrons, CMB, double helix.

The mark of a weak theory: It can a posteriori model a previously known phenomenon.

The CMB is fully and completely described by the Inflationary Big Bang theory, without any careful selection of parameters or mathematical tricks.

I don't know why everyone is so afraid of dark matter, YOU are dark matter. Dark matter includes atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas.

have started watching this after my head hurting leaning about electron spin which seems to be the most contrived, complicated explanation of what should be an elegant and simple theory.

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hyctIDPRSqY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

no stuff that clumps or glows when hot
is not dark matter

you are not dark matter
nor ARE atoms, molecules, rocks, planets, asteroids, dust, people, aliens, creatures, particles, objects, moons...everything other than stars and hot gas

that is all normal matter
heat it it will glow
form a clump it will stay and attack more
DARK MATTER IS SOMETHING ELSE
IT CAN'T CLUMP OR GLOW

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT DARK MATTER IS
BUT 30% OF THE UNIVERSE IS DARK MATTER VS 5% normal matter
with 65% dark energy that is the force driving the expansion
we do not know what dark energy is ether

Did PBS tell you that?

Dark matter is matter that can be measured gravitation-ly, but not using normal electromagnetic spectrum studies. No IR, no radio, no visual, no waves. Dark matter has existed in our research for decades, MANY decades.

There is some materials that seem to contribute that we cannot quantify (i.e. there doesn't seem to be enough planets, dust, comets, asteroids, aliens or rocks per star to contribute enough gravity), but to say that dark matter is something different is not true. Accepting a reasonable amount of weakly interacting, primary particles per cubic lightyear DOES solve it though.

no hawking and these guys https://forum.cosmoquest.org/

I am nota there also

physic's requires PROOF NOT GUESSES

The universe isn’t expanding. It’s just getting bigger.

Clearly Dr. Lincoln has read this thread and created a video to explain one of my questions.

<iframe width="1502" height="845" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A0FZgCiJGrg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Relativity is weird. My figures are guesses from a previous set of accurate facts, but good enough for illustration: Imagine three objects, A, B and C. Object B is receding from Object A at .6C. Object C is receding from Object B at .7C. All three objects are in a straight line, and their movements keep them in a straight line. It would seem that Object C is receding from Object A at 1.3C but this is impossible and untrue. According to relativity, Object C is receding from Object A at .82C.