Yes I already explained that I understand.
Yup.
What. I’m saying this to extend the discussion on the law of conservation of matter and why it’s applied on earth. You know the joke about how people have asked if the world gets heavier when we build houses? Well, the response was explaining that it can’t get heavier because the stuff they built houses with were already on earth but just physically changed and the matter not used is still left on earth, meaning earth loses no atoms in itself, nor gains. And I’m saying disturbance is the only way to alter the amount of atoms a planet has.
And I think you already made that point more than once.
i’m not sure where you’re exactly going with the whole thing. you understand what conversion of matter is but you believe it only applies on earth, but now you’re saying you already got it?
I think I made it clear here that I’m not saying it’s true or that I ever believe that. I clearly had shown that I was undecided.
you did say you think which means you didn’t know for sure but you thought, which was why i tried explaining so
Well it appears that way but what happens in my brain is me saying that sort of stuff is me sharing thoughts/opinions that I have not fully developed or truly believe in, so I use others’ responses as a sounding board for ideas and theories in a debate against myself rather than acting as an actual conversation partner.
Though that argument of yours is valid, I just wanted to let you know that I’m trying to make it clear I don’t strictly believe that.
And me saying I get it, is me saying I understand your response to my statement. But you proceeded to keep saying the same thing more than once.
i think it’s okay to not believe in certain things, but this is a discussion about the theories of the universe so i also wanted to share why i believe that the conversion of matter doesn’t apply to just earth
but you’ve mentioned this also more than once, seems like you have a problem with it. did it make you feel a way?
Mentioned it in a response to your repeated statements. If you look above, you can see where I quote you saying it and then responding to it. Therefore the assumption/question hiding as an assumption that I have a problem with it is exceeding a limit that’s logically unreasonable.
exceeding a limit that’s logically unreasonable? i get it can be annoying if someone repeated something over, but i don’t think it’s unreasonable. are you tone policing me with the way i said it? because this is getting off topic and me repeating it doesn’t relate to the argument
i’m just going to leave it here because i don’t want to argue over someone tone policing me. how someone says something doesn’t relate to this topic, you should focus on the actual argument and not how someone says it. that would be tone policing which is against forum guidelines
You’re taking everything I say in the wrong way lolol. No I’m not tone policing. I’m explaining why your question about me feeling a type of way because of your repeated responses are just not something you would ask. 
Because you claimed I was repeating it a lot as well (as a way to explain your assumption that I was emotionally affected) when I was in fact saying you’re repeating it in response to your repetition. Idk what you’re not understanding?
i said you mentioned the way i spoke more than once, so i asked you if you had a problem with it?
I was never talking about the way you spoke I was talking about you repeating a statement more than once after I told you I understood.
i think the reason why i misunderstood was because of your overuse of big words. not saying the big words confused me, it just sounded weird so i got confused
weird or “too wordy” if that makes sense
That’s an odd take on my way of speaking to others because I explain my thoughts with the precise words that I feel communicate it best.
if you wanna put it that way
Do you feel some sort of tension in this conversation?
meh, i dont take it as hard feelings tbh
Hmm I’d like to think that parallel universe maybe real. It’s already debunked about parity symmetry meaning that there is no way to prove that whether we live in a mirror universe or regular universe. However I still need to obtain more knowledge about parallel/mirror universe since I don’t know much about that topic.
Okay so this law about the universe expansion called the Hubble Law. Basically most of the galaxies are red shift meaning like they’re moving away from each other and that causes the universes to expand, however some galaxies like the Andromeda galaxy that will collide with the Milky Way in many years, is a blue shift which is the opposite of red shift.
Anyways I think that in billions of years, most of the galaxies will begin to be blue shift instead of red shift, causing the universe to go back into singularity.