Steady State need not mean 'static' universe.

[RascalPuff]

When matter itself is recognized as being in a constant state of accelerating expansion, the concept of a 'static' universe is excluded from what is usually intended in the term 'Steady State' universe.

When the expansion of space is accompanied by the corresponding expansion of matter, the Steady State universe is also an expanding universe.

Ergo, the presently abandoned 'Steady State' universe is consequently reinstated.

In this setting, the accelerating expansion of corporeal matter can account for - and be the cause of - the expansion of space, and the maintenence of relative, uniform density.

The physical universe may be expanding with - and the cause of - the spatially expanding universe.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Rascal,is the steady state the real state? If we are evolving,are we steadily evolving do you think?




regards michael.

btw,looked at the site,10 cents please.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, you can't have uniform density, and a spatially expanding universe. The two concepts are mutually excluded by the very laws of physics... Or, do you mean changing density over time, as your "relative" adjective implies... Language is so horrible...

Lloyd

When matter itself is recognized as being in a constant state of accelerating expansion, the concept of a 'static' universe is excluded from what is usually intended in the term 'Steady State' universe.

When the expansion of space is accompanied by the corresponding expansion of matter, the Steady State universe is also an expanding universe.

Ergo, the presently abandoned 'Steady State' universe is consequently reinstated.

In this setting, the accelerating expansion of corporeal matter can account for - and be the cause of - the expansion of space, and the maintenence of relative, uniform density.

The physical universe may be expanding with - and the cause of - the spatially expanding universe.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[RascalPuff]

Rascal, you can't have uniform density, and a spatially expanding universe. The two concepts are mutually excluded by the very laws of physics... Or, do you mean changing density over time, as your "relative" adjective implies... Language is so horrible...

Lloyd

Lloyd, the Standard Theory (big bang) presentation of the abandoned Steady State (since the 1927 discovery of the expanding Sylpher-Hubble universe) depicts a spatially expanding universe, where the occurrence of physical systems 'thins out and dissipates with the passage of time'...

Consequently disqualifying the proposed Steady State of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle... (Which does not present a dissipating universe, but rather, one that remains approximately the same density, past, present and future...)

But, when the physical systems themselves are enlarging (omnidirectionally accelerating from their centers - from sub-atomic particles to everything constituted of them), then, the premise that the universe ('inevitably') 'thins out' is compromised; by the accelerating expansion of matter itself.

Yes, I mean that the density of the collective universe - the physical contents of space - (consequently) remains 'relatively' the same.

The physical contents of the universe were more dense in the past, than they are in - when compared with - the present, and will be less dense in the future, when compared with the present.

Whereas, there is not any greater or lesser amount of physical matter - it's the same amount of energy, increasingly distributing itself over a greater area of space. Squared.

This is how there can be ongoing expansion (omnidirectional acceleration) in what is still an ongoing steady state universe.

The cause of the proposed expansion of matter is no more mysterious than the (hotly debated) cause of the expansion of space; which has recently been observed to be an accelerating expansion; notably corresponding with Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant repelling force (a previously unknown force which becomes greater with distance) - now unabashedly retrieved from 'retirement' and referred to as 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter <LCDM>'...

Improvised by the big bangologists to patch up their formerly single-centered (non accelerating) big bang; which is transforming - 'evolving'/'adjusting' - into a hybrid steady state (by any other name), via the Cosmological Constant ('Dark matter', 'quintessence', et al), with no acknowledgment or recognition of the omnidirectional acceleration of matter itself... Why all these poker faced contortions to maintain 'the big bang' school?

'Because:
"obviously, matter is not expanding".


Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The only way I can read your response Rascal, is the contortions seem to be yours alone. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You state both a thicker density, in the past, and a thinner density, in the future, then directly contradict yourself, by stating a universe/matter of constant density. This is why I've pointed it out to you in the past, and again in this thread. The laws of physics require a changing density, if expanding, or shrinking, though the total mass of matter, remains the same. We know it is expanding, just by visual knowledge of the stars' photons expanding their presence, to deeper levels of space. So, you must choose one fact or the other, you can't have both. 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___It don't work no other way. And, if contracting, it must be, overall and total, becoming more dense. Of course, then too, one must take into account each galaxy's evolutional time horizons, as some may be becoming more dense, the lesser aged ones, while others may be becoming less dense, due to aging, and stars dying faster than those being born. Of course, we'll only experience all this at our reference frame's position, as C___186,000mps. So, though it all remains physics, in the a-priori logic world of scientific laws and maths, the laws of matter density still controls the true picture, as we have already proven, c/light slows in higher matter densities. It's even visible with the naked eye in ulexite___nature's fiber-optics. So, as I've already stated, already proven experiments control and prove matter density motions, of matter in particle matter/fields. Bohr and Einstein are still correct, in this respect, but cosmological constant, IMO, is highly incorrect. Everything moves, everywhere...! With this caveat___Infinity, overall, may be stationary, we have no way to know...

Lloyd

Lloyd, the Standard Theory (big bang) presentation of the abandoned Steady State (since the 1927 discovery of the expanding Sylpher-Hubble universe) depicts a spatially expanding universe, where the occurrence of physical systems 'thins out and dissipates with the passage of time'...

Consequently disqualifying the proposed Steady State of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle... (Which does not present a dissipating universe, but rather, one that remains approximately the same density, past, present and future...)

But, when the physical systems themselves are enlarging (omnidirectionally accelerating from their centers - from sub-atomic particles to everything constituted of them), then, the premise that the universe ('inevitably') 'thins out' is compromised; by the accelerating expansion of matter itself.[You are infusing two discreet systems in the one discreet, separate, yet whole system. Herein lies your mistake. You can't achieve truth, by stating two opposites, in one statement. Matter itself, and the entire universal system, are thinning, and expanding___period. The laws remain in tact.]

Yes, I mean that the density of the collective universe - the physical contents of space - (consequently) remains 'relatively' the same.[This is a contradiction in terms, and is only solved by realizing, most of the void, before first light/star/blackhole/whatever, existed, for the post first star universe, to expand into, and not from some foolish standard model point particle. This very mis-conception is the reason everyone runs aground in contradictions, and mis-perceptions. A something universe has to exist first, for this universe to come from, i.e., a fundamental substance void, radom motionly, creates our near-uniform long expanding/contracting universe cycles. Interdisciplinary a-priori logic of the known and proven laws, maths and experiments, done and possible, easily proves this.]

The physical contents of the universe were more dense in the past, than they are in - when compared with - the present, and will be less dense in the future, when compared with the present.[Totally agreed, or is this my statement...?]

Whereas, there is not any greater or lesser amount of physical matter - it's the same amount of energy, increasingly distributing itself over a greater area of space. Squared.[Agreed, but it's according to whether we're talking about S1 and S2 space, as I've termed them, just to distinguish between void and space___They are different, as our S2 universe space is expanding into the eternally infinite S1 void___Logic makes no sense, any other way. The statement is absolutely correct when both S1 and S2 space, which is really one, are included. Ain't linguistics fun...?]

This is how there can be ongoing expansion (omnidirectional acceleration) in what is still an ongoing steady state universe.[I think your steady state universe, has a few broken wings. I agree, the conbined S1 and S2 is a steady state universe, but what physics so far contends, with and for, is surely lacking in logical support.]

The cause of the proposed expansion of matter is no more mysterious than the (hotly debated) cause of the expansion of space; which has recently been observed to be an accelerating expansion; notably corresponding with Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant repelling force (a previously unknown force which becomes greater with distance) - now unabashedly retrieved from 'retirement' and referred to as 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter <LCDM>'...[I accept the dark FS matter/motion/energy of S1 first, and S2 second, but the cold and hot forces, are always fundamentally hydrodynamic, i.e., cold's near lack of heat motion, in S1 space/void, and heat's ready supply of hydrodynamic star motion, in S2 space___Our observed universe, but who knows, maybe the dark between our galaxies, is the S1 void, when we peer deep enough....]

Improvised by the big bangologists to patch up their formerly single-centered (non accelerating) big bang; which is transforming - 'evolving'/'adjusting' - into a hybrid steady state (by any other name), via the Cosmological Constant ('Dark matter', 'quintessence', et al), with no acknowledgment or recognition of the omnidirectional acceleration of matter itself... Why all these poker faced contortions to maintain 'the big bang' school?[IMO, dark matter is not a cosmological constant, but is matter in motion, but linguistically, can be interpreted as both, when the full dynamics of infinity are considered___Linguistics is a bitch...]

'Because:
"obviously, matter is not expanding".[All logical physics dis-agrees with this, but not at the confused/conflicting rates you apply___Though, I think you jest. Try to be more honest...]


Best regards,
- RP

The best,
Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

The only way I can read your response Rascal, is the contortions seem to be yours alone. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You state both a thicker density, in the past, and a thinner density, in the future, then directly contradict yourself, by stating a universe/matter of constant density. This is why I've pointed it out to you in the past, and again in this thread. The laws of physics require a changing density, if expanding, or shrinking, though the total mass of matter, remains the same. We know it is expanding, just by visual knowledge of the stars' photons expanding their presence, to deeper levels of space. So, you must choose one fact or the other, you can't have both. 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___It don't work no other way. And, if contracting, it must be, overall and total, becoming more dense. Of course, then too, one must take into account each galaxy's evolutional time horizons, as some may be becoming more dense, the lesser aged ones, while others may be becoming less dense, due to aging, and stars dying faster than those being born. Of course, we'll only experience all this at our reference frame's position, as C___186,000mps. So, though it all remains physics, in the a-priori logic world of scientific laws and maths, the laws of matter density still controls the true picture, as we have already proven, c/light slows in higher matter densities. It's even visible with the naked eye in ulexite___nature's fiber-optics. So, as I've already stated, already proven experiments control and prove matter density motions, of matter in particle matter/fields. Bohr and Einstein are still correct, in this respect, but cosmological constant, IMO, is highly incorrect. Everything moves, everywhere...! With this caveat___Infinity, overall, may be stationary, we have no way to know...

Lloyd




The best,
Lloyd

____________________________

"...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...

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.

"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 - 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'? The contrary being the case.

Where, when and how am I aspiring to 'eating cake and having it also'?

I take issue with your askew allusion to my honesty - as though my intentions here, or anywhere else are - or were - furtive.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Double post

[N0B0DY]

I don't think Lloyd realizes who you are, RP. Perhaps getting the two of us confused or something to that effect.

At any rate, wouldn't acceleration increase the matter density, proportionate to its rate? I think I had asked this before, but don't recall if mass is continuously packed on to keep things proportionate. Otherwise I think there would be some major gaps in the earth - like astronomical - observable even to the naked eye.

[RascalPuff]

I don't think Lloyd realizes who you are, RP. Perhaps getting the two of us confused or something to that effect.

At any rate, wouldn't acceleration increase the matter density, proportionate to its rate? I think I had asked this before, but don't recall if mass is continuously packed on to keep things proportionate. Otherwise I think there would be some major gaps in the earth - like astronomical - observable even to the naked eye.

Hey there Nobody:
It's the same quantity of omnidirectionally accelerating energy distributed over an increasing quantity of space: squared.

Density remains the same in present time ('Eternal now'), varying only when compared with itself at earlier or later times - relatively more dense in the past, and relatively less dense in the future, ad infinitum.

There is no conflict with the law of conservation of mass energy.


Good to hear from you,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

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.