Soumendra Nath Thakur
December 24, 2024
Your reference to "density of space" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of density, violating its very definition. Density is defined as the measure of how tightly packed a material is, expressed as the mass of a substance per unit volume. While "volume of space" is a valid term, "density of space" is incorrect because space is not a material entity and does not possess mass.
Furthermore, your statement, "anything that expands or contracts, its density decreases or increases," is a flawed analogy. The expansion of distance, as discussed in my post, is a linear phenomenon and does not involve volumetric changes. Measuring distance does not equate to measuring volume, rendering your analogy inapplicable to the concept of increasing distances between galaxies.
Additionally, my post does not reference or account for the density of matter or galaxies. Yet, you have misrepresented it by imposing the idea of "density of matter taking galaxies into account," which my post never addressed. This misrepresentation undermines the context and intent of my argument.
To clarify, the recession of galaxies signifies an increase in the distances between them—a linear increment—not a volumetric mass increase, as you incorrectly implied by referencing density changes.
Your comment fails to address the substance of my argument and instead misinterprets it with irrelevant and baseless counterpoints. I recommend understanding the message of my post more thoroughly before attempting to counter it.
No comments:
Post a Comment