[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note]

of course i have yet to find any reasonable and/or logical argument to my contention that if it is space that is "responsible" for the so called "expansion" of the Universe, that when looked at three dimensionally, 360degrees, and that every single mi-nute point within the sphere of space, is pulling exactly equall to any other point in space why, the Universe is expanding in the first place.

Until this happens the Reasonable and logical conclusion is that space is NOT in FACT happening at all. and that other explainations, theories, must come into the discussion to explain this illusion of the Universe is expanding. obviously

therefore BBT is fundamentally flawed. some have not simply accepted this yet.

any theory in which expansion of the Universe is NOT apart of the theory, is certainly and absolutely a good start. period.

[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note] okay, if i was on some distant planet in some distant galaxy why would i not say that from my point of view, you are "redshifted" from my point of view.

therefore one redshift cancels the other, null shift. BB busted. period.

Per this post, I have split north's post (#2, above) from the How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories? thread, as it is clearly OT.

So, do we conclude, from the use of the word "period", that, in your view, cosmology can (and should?) be done by fiat?

If so, how is this compatible with doing science? And why should such an arbitrary declaration, by north, carry any significance, among scientists?

If you don't intend "period" to indicate finality (debate over, no further discussion possible, or allowed), then what scientific basis do you have for your assertion? I'm particularly interested in why you use the words "certainly" and "absolutely".

Why? Why would they absence of expansion warrent a period?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.

[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
okay, if i was on some distant planet in some distant galaxy why would i not say that from my point of view, you are "redshifted" from my point of view.

therefore one redshift cancels the other, null shift. BB busted. period.


the reason why i say you get a null expansion beause both give a redhift, is in conjuction with with my argument that space can not be responsible for the expansion in BBT. because space its self pulls equally in ALL three dimensional directions, 360 degrees and on all points within this geometry.


and besides this when you include multiple perspectives, besides our own , somewhere along the line you will have a clash of expansions, to the point where blueshifts come into the picture.

BBT is fundamentally busted. period.

First, I think that you may have misunderstood this aspect of modern cosmology ... the expansion of the universe follows from an application of Einstein's General Relativity, to the universe as a whole. When you add mass and photons to such a GR universe (realistic additions, because the universe we live in obviously contains both), it must either expand or contract.

So, an objection to an expanding (or contracting) universe is, at first blush, a rejection of GR.

Is this the thrust of your post? That GR is fundamentally flawed?

If so, in what way does "when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally" contradict GR?

Alternatively, from this north idea, what results of the hundreds of experiments and observations have been misinterpreted? (I assume that you do not dispute the validity of the results of these experiments and observations - do you?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
i say this because since space its self seems to be the "reason" for exspansion of the the Universe, at least in BBT, that when looked at three dimensionaly,360degrees, and at the mi-nutest points,geometrically speaking, space would "pull" all points of matter in space equally. and therefore lead to a null movement.






whether there is a contradiction of GR is not the point really, that is for you to figure out. simply stated, space is NOT responsible for redshifts, Reasonably and/or logiclly. and that is a fact. and my perspective it seems has never been considered.

as for your last statement. it is quite clear that we have not been thinking three dimensionally, spacially. and therefore yes like it or not , the observations have been misinterpreted.

this nothing to do with me, i simply pointed out a flaw in the interpretation of the conclusions which have been drawn from the observations.

Reasonably.

if you doubt my Reasonable conclusions, on my spacial ramifications, then lets focus on this first.

give me an argument that says i'm wrong. then we will move forward from there.

what i'm speaking is not about authority Nereid, for if that were the case who would question Newton?

if Albert were here( ohhhhh... how i wish!!!), i would present the same argument to him. not out of disrespect but because it is a truth. and i really think he would appreciate, the truth. Naturally

[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note]And your mathematical proof of this is what? I'd really be interested in how you would get the metric to do this. If your not using a metric based gravity theory, I would really love to see the math behind this statement.


Huh? Care to explain this mathematically also?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

If this was the case, you might be right. But this is not the case. The "distance" between an electron and its nucleus, for example, might be pretty erratic, but it is not expanding with the expansion of the cosmos. Not only is the electromagnetic force holding the atom together about 10⁷⁰ times greater than the essentially imperceptible vacuum energy expanding the space between them, but if the expansion force is rightly described by Einstein's cosmological constant, then space's energy density between the electron and the nucleus remains the same even as such a mi-nute volume expands to double its size, which would take, uh.... how many years?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I see no violation of GR because GR works in 4D Riemann space where there is no "center" unlike our familiar 3D space (within a 4D space) where we could expect all masses to be drawn to a center. North has raised a valid point here. Our galaxy is not being acted upon by any force that is either pushing or pulling us towards any "center" of the universe. We are the "center" of the universe and that same point of view can be applied to all the other galaxies. Every galaxy, or better, every galactic cluster, is at the very "center" of the universe and it is not being acted upon to move in any direction. A 4D hypersphere is a stable geometry.

An electron shell about a nucleus is a 3D object within a larger 4D space-time and the geometry is not the same. An atom has an identifiable center but our universe does not. Our universe is all center and no edge.

[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note]North’s "null attraction" is possible in the Riemann geometry of Einstein’s GR. The attraction of the galaxies above us is exactly countered by the attraction of the galaxies below us and we are not being drawn anywhere. Nor are any of the other galaxies because all galaxies share the common view that they are at the "center" of the universe. Also in Riemann’s curved space, the distant galaxies that are redshifted because they are rushing away from us are simultaneously rushing towards us from the opposite direction.

[Moderator Note] This post has been moved from the Big Bang Theory Whats wrong with it? thread. [/Moderator Note]Possible. He still has to show the math that this is actually what is happening.

So, you discount the observation that we are being pulled toward the great attractor? That seems to indicate that we are being pulled somewhere, in direct conflict with North's claim.

That would depend on how the manifold is curved. Again, all I asked him for is the math to show that the manifold is indeed curved in the way he claims it is.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Not under general relativity, actually. So it's either that general relativity is not an accurate description of the universe (a position you don't seem to want to take), or the universe is dynamic. Well, with the right value of a cosmological constant, you can get a static universe, but even then, it's an unstable equilibrium point, not a stable one.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Gentlemen (and ladies) your are overlooking the obvious: The reason no space expansion is evident anywhere within our solar system or galaxy is because while space is expanding, Time is contracting!

... thought a little humor would lighten the load.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

It sure feels like it to me too!

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliam