"Modern scientists" have stated a lot of things that you have spent the last 30 days discussing in depth. Why take a cop-out on this point?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

I just remember back before the '13 billion years' pronouncement was handed down. You obviously choose not to remember, but why else would Nature Magazine run a headline 'Universe in Conflict' if there wasn't any conflict?

Because 1) NASA has ruled, and 2) This thread is about Inward Expansion, the kind that Speeds Up, remember, versus Outward Expansion, the kind that slows down and stops.

In post#1, I showed that the nozzle of a Central Vac will cause a low Pressure to form, into which the Air/Dust Combination will Expand. Inwardly.

This expansion Speeds Up, with respect to the Air/Dust Combo.

The expansion of the Cosmos is also Speeding Up. That's because we're going in, Kelfazin, not Outwards, as Modern Scientists are telling you.

These are the same people telling you the Cosmos is only 13 billion years old.

I found this article Conflict over the age of the Universe in Nature from 03 August 2002 by:
M. Bolte & C. J. Hogan
Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA.
Astronomy and Physics Department, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.


Abstract:
Seems to me the conflict is between 15 Gyr (gigayear) and 8-13 Gyr. Was there a different article?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

All I would be able to do is give you some articles from before August 3/2002 so you could see the problem better.

But this is not for this Thread. Now Kelfazin, do you know of any other outward expansion that speeds up - other than that being caused by Dark Energy?

I think it is part of this thread because you say the only way NASA could make DE fit is if NASA proclaims (hard to "invent" the math that backs it up without being caught, not sure how they got away with that) that the universe is a certain age..orders of magnitude less than the "actual" age. It's crucial to your argument against mainstream science.

Asking me the same question over and over will not suddenly make me accept your theory.

ETA: Is the article I posted the one you were talking about? Nature magazine, conflict over age of universe?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

You haven't really "said" anything; just waving your arms around a lot, deflecting facts away and insisting your view of science is the only right view.

I made a real effort to see things your way in the beginning, but it soon became apparent that facts did not matter in this theory - unless taken out of context and twisted so as to plug in 'somewhere' to make your idea 'seem' coherent...to you. You're failing to take anything that anyone says constructively or with consideration, 'cat. The most glaring example is your interpretation of the Great Attractor and facts relatiing to it, but your treatment of fluid dynamics and gravity, comparing black holes to vacuum cleaners, and a number of other things really add to the pile.

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Sure, I got something.

Of course they were Big Bang driven - where else do you think they get the 'Hubble Constant'? It's all one and the same thing... a complicated mess, if you ask me.

It appears that astrocat believes, for personal reasons, that some sort of long range repulsive force cannot exist on a cosmic scale. Such a force presumably is needed to overcome gravity and drive an accelerating expansion of the cosmos at the largest scales. He therefore proposes a pattern of motion he calls "inward expansion" to avoid the need for such a force.

Can such a force be ruled out from first principles? I think not. Presumably an Almighty Creator or whatever entity brought about the Universe as we see it could have created such a force, without giving a hoot about whether a fallible human being thinks it makes sense.

Astrocat uses the absence of any such thing as a sustained accelerating outward expansion in familiar earthbound settings as part of the basis of his argument, but absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Familiar earthly examples have nongravitational constraints such as surrounding air that are not necessarily a factor out in space, so the cosmic case does not necessarily follow from the familiar cases.

Astrocat uses the motion of air being sucked into a vacuum cleaner as an analogy to his cosmic idea. That is a pressure driven motion in which the air indeed would expand as it approaches the lower pressure inside the machine. However, when pressed for an energy source for his cosmic idea, he invokes gravitationally driven inrush into a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious black hole. That, unfortunately, would result in compression and heating, rather than ongoing rarefaction and cooling which he envisions.

Suppose for the sake of argument he has a source of energy he believes in that will function in a manner analogous to a vacuum cleaner. We could say we do not believe it any more than he believes in the possibility of the cosmic repulsive force. Then we would need some observations to choose one or the other.

I argued that the convergence of his model would have a spectral Doppler signature very different from what astronomers actually see when they look deep enough to make the relatively short range irregularities average out. He argued that our vision must be obstructed, and that if we find a way of looking deeper, we will see the evidence for his idea. When pressed for a way to reconcile what we can see with his idea, he would give us a lot of chatter about "inward expansion", cooling, entropy increase, vortex-driven clumping, etc., none of which explains the spectral Doppler pattern which actually is observed on very large scales.

I could go on and on, but this thread will close in a couple of days and I want to be sure of getting this posted. I have no choice but to concur with the standard model in the face of his failure to make a viable case for his idea. At this point I do not understand the dark energy that is needed to make the standard model accelerate, but it fits the observations. Should that model ultimately fall apart and it turns out that astrocat really is on to something, his time will come, provided he can get his act together on some of the relatively elementary principles of physics.

Wow, I'm impressed I read the first four pages - all about the Big Bang. I am staggered that so much work has been done on it. Disagree with it, Tensor? Where should I start?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

***It is important to realize that no one has ever measured any expansion of space. There is no evidence whatsoever that atoms, galaxies, or galaxy clusters have got larger over time
. Big bang theory claims that in the beginning – just 8 to 15 billion years ago – there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no energy, no consciousness, not even any space. And out of this nothingness the universe suddenly popped into being as a result of a ‘random quantum fluctuation’. After originating as an infinitesimal point, of infinite density and temperature, space has supposedly been stretching like elastic ever since.
****However, if there was no space and no matter or energy before the hypothetical big bang, there was obviously nothing to undergo a ‘fluctuation’ and nowhere for it to occur! But big bangers have long since abandoned ordinary rules of logic and have created a fantasy world of their own, based on advanced mathematical acrobatics.Yet obviously something created itself from nothing or something has always existed which is unreasonable in all forms so I think that both christians and big bang supporter's believe that something suddenly without any thought or resources appeared into existence in an instant and created matter, density, gravity radiation and everything that we know to exist. Which ofcourse is scientificly impossible but we have and will never understand how life formed because It will never seem possible to a human being. Life was created through a very simple method that science can never explain. For noone at any given time has been outside the universe. For you see I believe that alot more universes similar to our universe exist but we as people never even been to milky way. Now who can go against my theory and tell me that no other universe apart from ours exists? is it something science can ever prove? what I'm trying to say is you are looking in all the wrong places to find how everything began when the answer isn't in outerspace but in another universe that you will never be able to prove exists. so science will never have the answer.

__________________
Elton Hesbon P.h.d

Prove it.

Ok so you didn't read the page I linked to. Or, apparently, the bold text from my post where they specifically said, and I quote one again

I can't really do anything to highlight this better. Please see the bold, italicized, underlined, red text. In case you "forgot" here is the url:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

2 trillion years old. I say it is impossible for the Universe to have formed such mighty structures as we now see, in any lesser time span.

1) I'm looking at a newspaper article from Oct 27, 1994 - in the Globe and Mail by Steven Strauss, titled, "Universe gets younger by a few billion yeasrs", which states, "New measurements by the Hubble Telescope confirm a previous report and add fuel to what threatens to become a raging Astronomical dispute."

The problem was, as I have stated earlier, that they had the Stars older than the Universe that gave them birth.

The article goes on, "The situation is so confused that Nature headlines its accompanying commentary on today's article, 'A UIniverse in Conflict.

2)Another article, same paper, same writer, Feb.16, 1996, headlined "Study backs up illogical notion" subtitled "Oldest stars seem to predate Big Bang."

"The proposition that the stars in the universe are older than the universe itself, may be a logical impossibility, but it's one that just won't go away."

3)Globe and Mail again, from Reuters, May 26/1999, "Universe looks a little younger with new rersearch", details the fact that "Hubble himself thought the Universe to be only 2 Billion years old and Astronomers in the 1980s and 90s said the universe might be anywhere from 10 billion to 20 billion years old.

Doubts about these estimates surfaced in the 1990s when some elderly stars were thought to be older than the Universe itself", the story says.

3) Astronomy magasine, September 1999 - 'During a May News Conference in Washington DC, the Hubble Team said that the age of the Universe is about 13.5 billion years, plus or minus 10 percent.

However Hernstein says the universe could be 15 percent younger than that."

Here, Jim, is some evidence on the Conflict, that was very real, at that Time.

Here, I said that in North America, NASA is the governing authority on Space matters.

I never said that. In Post#378, I believe, Kelfazin says to me, 'You say, NASA lies and pushes false Science on the public...

No, I deny that. I didn't say NASA lies. I have seen newspaper articles where NASA says the Big Bang is proven. I don't thinkl NASA would deny that. I am looking for the article.. i know I have it.

I have been running a Thread in Q&A, trying to get some answers to help me do just that, but it is taking longer than I thought. Sorry.

Absolutely, Jim.

The abstract from the article I quoted from Nature says the conflict was with stars being 15 Gyr, and the Hubble Constant showing 13 Gyr.

In your articles, how old does it say the stars are...2 Tyr (Terayears) old?

You're changing your stripes now. You originally said
When I questioned this, you said
So maybe you don't use the word "lies" or "false" but you say they chose an answer "arbitrarily" in order to save jobs. You say they send letters to the press stating DE and the BB are proven, which you say are false. You say DE and the BB do not exist.
Therefore, based on you own words, NASA is sending letters to the press which contain patently false information, in order to save jobs. How is this different then what we summarized?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"