how is empty space expanding?

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Is there such thing as empty space?

Is there a space, then it's never empty due to quantum phenomena.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Nope. You do not know what alien life is.

Alien life means life not originating from Earth, stupid.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Are you saying dark energy theory is more than mere guessing?

Did I say that? Did I say the opposite?
All I said was that your theory is nothing more than a mere guessing.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Nope. You do not know what alien life is. We know of the concept of alien life, but knowing if it is carbon based life or something else (silicon based for example) is impossible. How could you make any predictions of alien life if you don't even know what kind of life it is? Same thing with dark energy. You have a concept of dark matter but know nothin ...[text shortened]... simply biased in favor of the most popular theory. A child could do that, even a retarded child.

Did you read my post about the lifespan of black holes and what you think the mass of your hypothesis that BH's are dark matter? Or is it dark energy?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Your counter is broken.

He's right, nothingness can't have momentum

Darwin done it.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Did I say that? Did I say the opposite?
All I said was that [b]your theory is nothing more than a mere guessing.[/b]

So you admit my theory is no worse than the most popular. Why the negativity then?

Originally posted by @humy
Alien life means life not originating from Earth, stupid.

You still know nothing about it.....stupid!

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Did you read my post about the lifespan of black holes and what you think the mass of your hypothesis that BH's are dark matter? Or is it dark energy?

Start a new thread. Dark matter does not belong here.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
So you admit my theory is no worse than the most popular. Why the negativity then?

Did I say that? Did I say the opposite? Read again!
All I said was that your theory is nothing more than a mere guessing.
A guessing is always a guessing. Any guessing is as good as any other guessing. No negativity in that. Nor positivity.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Start a new thread. Dark matter does not belong here.

Can you reiterate, you said something about your theory being black holes. Was that dark energy you explain with black holes?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
So you admit my theory is no worse than the most popular. Why the negativity then?

I wonder if you saw this report, saying small black holes may be responsible for making heavy elements like gold, lead, uranium and such:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-primordial-black-holes-forge-heavy.html#nRlv

You might be on to something.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Did I say that? Did I say the opposite? Read again!
All I said was that your theory is nothing more than a mere guessing.
A guessing is always a guessing. Any guessing is as good as any other guessing. No negativity in that. Nor positivity.

Then you should have said the same thing about dark energy. I doubt you stopped to think dark energy theory is as flawed as it is though. Perhaps you have a tendency to overlook flaws of theories that are popular as opposed to unpopular.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Can you reiterate, you said something about your theory being black holes. Was that dark energy you explain with black holes?

No. I said dark matter was likely to be mostly black holes.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I wonder if you saw this report, saying small black holes may be responsible for making heavy elements like gold, lead, uranium and such:

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-primordial-black-holes-forge-heavy.html#nRlv

You might be on to something.

I didn't see it before now. Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
No. I said dark matter was likely to be mostly black holes.

and you, not being even a half-expert in science, would know that the most modern day cosmologists, that know vastly more about it than you and I and have spent many years researching and leaning, are probably wrong and probably wrong because dark matter is 'likely' to be 'mostly' black holes, how?
What logic/premise/inference/evidence led you to the conclusion that most dark matter is likely to be mostly black holes?
One of the first things many cosmologists did when dark matter theory was proposed is to estimate the amount of mass of black holes to see if that could account for the apparent rotation of galaxies; it didn't even come close. If there were that many black holes, we should be seeing vastly more gravitational lensing cases (from black holes) than we do observe.