Black Hole Universe Model Questions

I don't know what EMR is exactly and do not pretend to know. All I am saying is that either there is a real physical medium or the whole concept of waves and particles is a temporary place-holder standing for something that is not yet understood. The concept works well enough as it is even if the explanation is absurd. It's just that no absurd explanation satisfies so it cannot last indefinitely.

Electro Magnetic Radiation. Its that shit you were commenting on... er, I mean, making stuff up about And how do you know that? Keep in mind: Wave theories do make verified predictions. Are you saying: "It doesn't matter if the stuff I'm making up makes sense or not"?Let me know if you're not interested in the stuff your making up making sense so I don't waste too much time on you. On the other hand, if you want to actaully discuss something I'll be around.

Satisfies who? Exactly who or what must be satisfied in order for an explanation to be correct. I''m guessing who means, you, Alfred Maddenstein.Satisfies is a transient verb.

NoNukes, if you are tickled pink by these explanations, well, no problem for you then.
Alfred Maddenstein is not. That is all. Horses for courses and courses for horses.
Then the satisfaction goes like:
Light is a wave in vacuum. What is it exactly that is waving? Space-time which is a field metric.
Got it. Lovely and very instructive!!!!
The Universe is expanding. Where could it be possibly expanding into being everywhere already? Nowhere. It's JUST expanding. Everywhere itself is expanding.
Got it. Illuminating!!!!

I'll be more explicit. Lots of physics can seem counter-intuitive. Some things are counter-intuitive because they operate in apparent contradiction to what we experience everyday. But other things appear counter-intuitive because our intuition is faulty. In either case, the evidence can demonstrate that our intuition is misplaced.If your goal is to indicate which ideas don't make sense to you, you are doing an adequate job of defining yourself. But if your goal is to show others why they ought to have the same doubts, you are not being so successful. Nobody has any reason to trust your belief that 100 years of physics is wrong regardless of how well it works, particularly when we see you cite every crackpot on the internet. Planets are cooled suns? Please.

Translated from woo-woo into English: Alfred Maddenstein still doesn't understand physics. Which proves that physics is still stupid.

That implies you claim you do understand it. You may or may not have something behind that claim, Inadequate. Who knows.
So, come on, explain to the silly cat and the public: what is the medium for radiation waves if there is one, or alternatively how it is possible to wave if there isn't.
Also enlighten the moggy about the alleged universal expansion in no uncertain terms. Come on, don't be shy and put your money where your mouth is, Inadequate.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Well, it's not that intuition or common sense is ever really faulty. It's rather just limited in scope and application. Is the common sense perception that the line of sight to the horizon is straight faulty? It is not. What may be faulty is the extrapolation of that idea which is correct in itself onto the whole earth. When the overall relation is explained to the common sense though, there is no contradiction. Then it is clear that what is flat at close range may be round from a distance. The same goes for the Big Bunk cosmology with its linear time. It's only the common sense that every little thing may have an origin and a beginning in time. You are born, grow up and then die and one event is strictly following the other in linear succession. It becomes faulty only when this correct common sense intuition is projected onto the whole of existence. Only then the theory built on such an intuition becomes a piece of nonsense like it is the case with the Biblical and the Big Bunk cosmogonies.I don't have much time for all those labellings into cranks and?? whatever is the opposite of crank?Is this bozo Maldacena a crank or not in your opinion? The one who got 3 million dollar prize for his Maldacena conjecture. I read a couple of his papers and my conclusion is that he is a quack selling bunkum oil. Nothing to do with physics. You might disagree and might find his descriptions perfectly realistic and useful. At the same time you are holding that this dude's contention that planets are old stars to be very strange. Is there anything impossible in principle in the idea? It has a lot of difficulties to be sure. So does the idea of proto-planetary disc. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Intuition can fail without any warning that one has exceeded its scope. I'll let you decide whether that is a fault.I'm not going to continue any further off the topic of this thread. I have you down in the "don't believe that the universe is finite" and "don't believe there are black holes column".