[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd: A retake on our last communication, follows:
Rascal, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on your physics' integrity. It's just I can't see how you square the re-introduction of a steady state constant, when you admit a changing density rate. At least, that's how I think you mean it. IMO, steady state constants are in disagreement with the known physics of matter density, and light motions.

IMO, steady state constants are in agreement with the known physics of matter density, and light motions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
____________________________

"...if matter is expanding, then density, overall and total, must be thinning."

Lloyd, above-quote, appears to be the crux of our misunderstanding.

The issued post, emphatically accents that the density is thinner in the present, only when compared with the density of the past, and will continue to become ever more thin (in the future), only when compared with the density of the present... [True enough]

Whereas, at any given moment, the density - be it a reference to the collective (numerical) occurrence of physical systems in a given amount (parameter) of space, or the density of those given systems at a given moment in time - remains the same.[Again, IMO, this is a total contradiction. IFF density remains the same, how do stars radiat away density? Where does radiation go___into some non-existant void? I don't know about you, but I see self-contradiction...]

Lloyd: 'how do stars radiate away density?' Where does the radiation go..."?

RP: The stellar radiation issue is the same in any model of the universe. What's the problem here?


* "If you claim steady state, which I know you don't by what you've already written, many other places, and it would invalidate your expanding matter gravity ideas, which I don't entirely agree with, but the only universes left to choose is expanding, conspanding, or contracting, you must deal with true matter densities of directional changes, i.e., if matter is expanding, then density, overall and total, must be thinning..."

Refer my above response to that key statement on your part...

Please tell me where I disclaim steady state theory[I didn't say you disclaimed steady state theory <"If you claim steady state, which I know you don't by what you've already written, many other places" - Lloyd> , as I see you trying to re-instate such theory, just as you state. There seems to be much misinterpretation between our perceptions < Indeed. > ___maybe it's all a mistake of perceptions...? < That seems to be the case > ] - the manifest fact is that my consistently fulfilled objective is to reclaim and reinstate it...

How does my translation of the steady state theory 'invalidate my expanding gravity ideas'?[If you have steady state densities, you can't have expanding matter___plain and simple. The laws of light and matter don't allow it. <What laws of light and matter don't allow it? > ] The contrary being the case.[Maybe___define steady state, as you mean it. <I have defined - and am defining - steady state as I mean it.> ]

Where, when and how am I aspiring to 'eating cake and having it also'?[Steady state, and matter expansion creating gravity, idea... < You allege them to be self contradictory - that's what this debate is mostly about, while your allegations are characteristically not grounded in anything but sternly declared opinions > ]

I take issue with your askew allusion to my honesty[I'm simply pointing out what I see as a mistake of the laws of physics.] - as though my intentions here, or anywhere else are - or were - furtive.[No, it's just we're all human, we all make mistakes, maybe this is one of yours...?] I see allusions to mistakes, I do not see grounded corrections.

Your arguments often allude to 'laws of physics', which are generally not specified.


Best regards,
- RP

Sorry, but I still see a mistake in your thinking,
Lloyd

p.s.
Maybe you can clarify it better, as I have read most all your posts...