Dude.... 98.2% is a cbid term for "Who knows, I'm throwing a random made up number in here" (you're new, so I'll let it go... this time).

Thanks for the grace! I need it. Please let it go next time as well?

But more importantly, your certainty because of your "worldview" is not real. You are certain because of faith. Which is the opposite of evidence. I will never substitute faith in the unprovable for certainty.

victor809 wrote:

So here's where I see an issue with your theory.... and this is totally idle speculation....
if individual units of space are expanding (I would disagree with the "in the absence of a meaningful gravitational field" as the matter you've teleported will contain its own gravitational forces) then the other forces contained within any matter will also be expanding. Example..... let's say electrical force keeping two ions together can reach 15 nm in distance.... well, as your space expands, so does that 15 nm.... there's no reason to think that it will only reach 7nm at that time.

victor809 wrote:

^ is that absolutely true or could you be wrong about that?
🍺
You asked for it absurd guy.

Dg west deptford wrote:

I would argue that the gravitational field of the ruler would be insignificant relative to the expansion of space. Yes, 15 nm would be 15nm.... because of how we define the meter. That's not what I'm arguing. Im arguing you would fill the same space, but the space itself would be expanded limiting the ability of the matter to hold their bonds.

Again, this is assuming space is discreet... which is currently unknown.

bgz wrote:

I love the Absolute Truth that absolute zero doesn't exist because my Lord made it so.
Glory to God.
Thanks Vic.

Dg west deptford wrote:

So you're saying 2000 year old dead guys knew more than you... got it. Not sure why you think I misspelled or misused fear though.... that word didn't even make it's way into my last posts... in fact, I think I cropped it out of yours.

See, using spooky language to an atheist just makes you look like a word salad tosser to us.

Which is ok...

Cause everyone loves a good salad tosser, so welcome!!!

bgz wrote:

The gravity of the molecules of the ruler will definitely NOT be insignificant, if you're in a void where there are no other forces acting on the ruler. think about it... there's nothing to pull the molecules away from each other. In this imaginary void, there is no gravity other than that of the molecules. The only forces in this scenario are gravity between molecules, electromagnetic forces, and the weak and strong interactions of particles. Unless one or more of these forces start pushing away from each other, or some imaginary wind blows through, there will be no other force to cause the particles to move away from each other. Even if the space between the molecules is "expanded" so you've got a ruler perfectly blown up 2x... the only forces are the ones pulling the particles together. Even if you expand everything to the point that particle A is so far away from particle B that the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong forces between them cannot affect them.... what force would cause them to do anything other than stand where they are?

victor809 wrote:

bgz, if you look at my reference, I wasn’t responding to you, sorry if I gave you that impression.

And Z, you know that I know less than I think I know..
I think... 😇

fiddler898 wrote:

Yeah, expansion is a b*tch to wrap your head around. Unfortunatly you just conceeded that the ruler would appear relatively larger in expanded space.

This whole argument because I read an article that evidence suggested space is discreet. Unfortunately we can't test this because we can't teleport matter to a void.... or even get within a 100 million lightyears of a void for that matter. It's all hypothesis till you have experimental evidence or solid math to back it up. Because it's unknown whether space is discreet, we might as well be arguing about who's god is better.

bgz wrote:

^ is that absolutely true or could you be wrong about that?
🍺
You asked for it absurd guy.

Dg west deptford wrote:

True. This is all speculation. But barring some other speculative force, or some expected change in forces, I would see no reason why you would get the sudden dissipation of said ruler.

victor809 wrote:

All of you should probably know the definition of absolute before going any further.

CelticBomber wrote:

Well, that is the basis of the heat death hypothesis.

bgz wrote:

Oh, this wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at dg.

It was the salad tossing reference wasn't it :)

bgz wrote:

I don't know enough about the heat death of the universe... but does that require things to dissipate into nothing? That should just involve a lack of energy to sustain life. I'm going to have to look it up

victor809 wrote:

Please, define it for us, so that way we know your definition so we can argue with you in your local space :)

bgz wrote:

Sure... if you define local;-p

CelticBomber wrote:

Sure... if you define local;-p

CelticBomber wrote: