Steady State need not mean 'static' universe.

[RascalPuff]

That's the part I don't get, RP. Why it would differ in the past or future if the mass is remaining proportionate to spatial expansion. Isn't the idea of a decrease in density based on mass being distributed over a larger and larger amount of space?

Like if we measure a meter-long piece of wood with a yardstick in the past and again in the future, the measurement is the same because the mass of both the wood and yardstick have increased as the universe expands.

Not to say that there is a violation in the conservation law, but that the vacuum energy is converted to mass due to acceleration.

'... but the vacuum energy is converted to mass due to acceleration".

I don't understand what you mean by this, please explain.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I'd have to get into unorthodox hypotheses to perhaps clearly express it, but essentially it's a return to old references to relativistic mass instead of rest mass. Based on some of the hypotheses regarding dark energy and kinetic energy as creating mass, matter is merely the result of those effects.

So with your expanding matter theory, I understood it in like terms where matter would actually increase due to the exponential spatial expansion which is beyond light speed. We would have both light and gravity at c, but virtual "particles" at greater than c moving backwards in time to create matter which moves at less than c. The proportionate aspect is that the matter would naturally increase continually the more the virtual particles increase in velocity.

I guess another way to put it is the equal reaction opposing increasing acceleration. The more accelaration is applied, the more energy is converted to matter to offset the effects of acceleration in order to keep the observable objects the same. Otherwise, I was thinking that the Earth, say, would not appear the way it does because space would increase and matter would be observed as becoming thinner and thinner which as far as we can tell is not the case.

Sorry if it's not expressed clearly. It's the best I could do.

[mkirkpatrick]

Consider the idea of form expanded to include fufilment of intention,then see that consciousness squares the equation,that all into 1=0.




regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Consider the idea of form expanded to include fufilment of intention,then see that consciousness squares the equation,that all into 1=0.




regards michael.

________________

Hey Michael:
Not to disagree with you, but I think the course of this discussion calls for more specificity. Your bid for consideration may impress some readers as being post graduately beyond the level of the subjected issue. Speaking for myself, and perhaps many others, your - often characteristic - approach may be categorized as preemptively 'visionary'.

May your pattern, motivation and style perservere.

Thank you,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

________________

Hey Michael:
Not to disagree with you, but I think the course of this discussion calls for more specificity. Your bid for consideration may impress some readers as being post graduately beyond the level of the subjected issue. Speaking for myself, and perhaps many others, your - often characteristic - approach may be categorized as preemptively 'visionary'.

May your pattern, motivation and style perservere.

Thank you,
- RP

Thank you Rascal,an interesting assessment of yours truly,more specifics-well,well we all
don't really exist,so why bother with mental masturbation,the point is "there is'nt one?


warm regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Thank you Rascal,an interesting assessment of yours truly,more specifics-well,well we all
don't really exist,so why bother with mental masturbation,the point is "there is'nt one?


warm regards michael.

Dear Michael:

With all concentric respects emanating from a common center, there's at least one, and it's all of us. Hee Haw.

Correspondingly fuzzy warm and fuzzy regards,
- RP

[austintorn@aol.com]

Forget Everything

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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.

____________________________

"...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...]

"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, as I see you trying to re-instate such theory, just as you state. There seems to be much misinterpretation between our perceptions___maybe it's all a mistake of perceptions...?] - 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.] The contrary being the case.[Maybe___define steady state, as you mean it.]

Where, when and how am I aspiring to 'eating cake and having it also'?[Steady state, and matter expansion creating gravity, idea...]

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...?]

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...

[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...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, if steady state constants are in agreement with the known physics of matter density, and light motions___you'd have to expand on it. Our premises are most likely of a total different set of axioms. IMO, matter density also means the matter densities of local areas of the eather field, in galaxies, in between sets of galaxies, and the entire universe at large. I think there's most likely a difference in our meanings of the two matter density ideas, of hard visible matter, and the aether's matter fields, i.e., I see fields as real 3D matter, not 2D dimensional fields, as 2D only works on paper, and in our abstract minds. In order for fields to have any true validity, they must possess a 3D quality. This may be counter to physics training and thinking, but you'll have a hard time showing me a 2D wave. Herein IMO, lies most of physics problems. Try seeing waves as opposing handedness, left handed and right handed, coils, as in a two steel springs, one wound to the left, and one wound to the right. Now, picture all your drawings' waves of same and opposite handedness, approaching each other. The hydrodynamics and vector mechanics of this complexity may explain the containment fields producing solid matter. This is by way of a physicist friend of mine, Jerry Merrill, whom I've been working with all summer. I think we've all been looking far too long at an over-simplified model of non-reality, of the truer handedness wave mechanics.

Try it out, and see what you come up with... There's many ways to picture this entire universal model, or models...

Lloyd

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,[What density?___Hard matter or aether fields?] 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[Which ones?] 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...][We still seem to be talking about the two different density substances.]

Lloyd: 'how do stars radiate away density?' Where does the radiation go..."?[Into the fields, thus increasing their densities...]

RP: The stellar radiation issue is the same in any model of the universe. What's the problem here?[IMO, you're only looking at part of the density puzzle___The hard matter of visible systems___What about the matter densities of the fields, themselves...?]


* "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..."[Here, I'm referring to both hard system matter{stars, black holes, planets, etc.} plus aether density matter...]

Refer my above response to that key statement on your part...[I mis-stated above___Replace "which I know you don't", with do...]

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>[My mis-quote, per above___Sorry...] , 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... [I realize that, but there is still dis-agreement about the total of matter densities, most likely coming from our different perspectives of Aether Densities, by me, and you not taking such quantum physics into account... Let me know if you discount Aether Density physics...?]

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?>[This we have to work on, as I am stating ideas about the combination of the two matter densities, and I think you are stating, "matter density", about solid matter,{stars, black holes, planets, etc.} only...]] 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.> ] [How do you see it if the dual nature of physical visible matter density, and wave density of fields, are considered...?]

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 > ][No, they're fully grounded in wave density mechanics, of 3D matter/wave fields, as 2D waves can not exist. Physics has made that mistake, not I.]

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.[I'm simply trying to point out grounded additions, to your well thought out ideas...]

Your arguments often allude to 'laws of physics', which are generally not specified.[Most likely because we understand different laws of physics. Let's explore how you feel about true wave/matter densities, then maybe we can proceed...]


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...