The 'curvature of space-time' is the physical expansion of matter.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Michael, Nobody and Prof (and whomever else may find an interest):

Have you compared this post (The 'curvature of space-time' is the physical expansion of matter') with the Magic Bullet (8/4/07, permalink 1 - 10)?

This post and that one are a matching pair of dove-tailing messages.

Best regards (please share your popcorn),
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Dear Michael, Nobody and Prof (and whomever else may find an interest):

Have you compared this post (The 'curvature of space-time' is the physical expansion of matter') with the Magic Bullet (8/4/07, permalink 1 - 10)?

This post and that one are a matching pair of dove-tailing messages.

Best regards (please share your popcorn),
- RP

Thank you Rascal for pointing us in the right direction,now who fired the gun and why?



regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... enjoyed your post muchly.

As for me, well, ostensibly, I have nothing to do with this ridiculous sequence of amateur signatures. Until if and when anybody who is anyone agrees that it's obvious; were scheduled to be enroute violent opposition from the big bang, as well as the steady state gang. Neither do I think their will be any sanctuary for us from the rowdy rippers...

Forewarned is forearmed, Sir.

I myself am not an advocate of the Big Bang. I accept the more recent ideas of inflation, until and if something better comes along. The difference is not trivial. Inflation answers so many of the questions that it would be foolish to discount without valid reasons.

Inflation is actually in very close agreement with your own theory. You have the advantage of recognising Einstein's Cosmological Constant in 1959. Inflation only came to realise it in the 1980's. Although the two theories differ in minutiae and the maths. But in the broader brush stroke of the artist the difference in symmetries are ironed out ... excuse the pun.

You have already stated that you have no intention of solving the minor details and that you are happy to leave the maths to others. There is nothing wrong with that. Who on this forum has the time or the budget to do this. We are amatuers and we can leave it to the professionals to do the hard work.

Rascal, I am not sure if you have delved into the inflationary theory in depth ... if not .. if you don't have the time .. I will post a synopsis of it and you will be pleasantly surprised at what you read ... Once more you will have cause to say "The bastards have been reading my mail"

The major difference is that inflationary theory has a base cause bound up in Quantum Mechanics ... something so far you have not accepted.

cool bananas ... greg

PS: I enjoyed your rather convoluted post ... I am getting used to your prose right off the bat ...

[RascalPuff]

Dear Greg:
Please do post your synopsis of the inflation theory, which I will attend to promptly and with interest.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Good question, Michael. Who fired the bullet and why?

I figured since this forum is about the toe, defined as the unification of forces, microscopic causes producing macroscopic effects would be relevant.

If a bullet fired in a negligible gravitational field would produce a similar effect as one fired in a stronger gravitational field, it would lend support to Einstein's hypothesis of unifying the gravitational field and the ethereal field. It would also lend support to a type of quantum gravity.

[thinking]

I'm not sure if this has been answered so I will ask again;

does space have a physical substance , in and of its self and does time likewise have a physical substance into and of its self?

I say NO.

space the essence of is based on energy/matter .

energy/matter need a certain amount of space inorder to simply exist in the first place.

my contention is that every atom needs a certain amount of space in-order to exist , which extends outside the electron space. therefore it is the existence of the energy/matter/atom which dictates the space that we know observe.

inotherwords if one multiplies the minimum amount of space needed for energy/matter/atom needs to exist you would get the volume of space we now see.

or space is manifested by energy/matter/atoms

[Graybeard]

Hey North .... In Post number 24 this thread, you asked a question

...... as I've asked before is the globular center of the galaxy actually moving away from us as well? it is an " assumption " is this the case? it is.

I replied .... and supplied the formulas and what i thought was a reasonable explanation.

You don't acknowledge this, nor have you in other threads. instead you just ask another question...

I'm not sure if this has been answered so I will ask again;

does space have a physical substance , in and of its self and does time likewise have a physical substance into and of its self?

Is it really too onerous to acknowledge that somebody replied to your question ? Right or wrong, agree or disagree, they did take the trouble.

Hey buddy, its not that hard, you just move the mouse over that little button that says THANKS and you click it.


cool bananas ... and no offence ... greg

[thinking]

Hey North .... In Post number 24 this thread, you asked a question



I replied .... and supplied the formulas and what i thought was a reasonable explanation.

You don't acknowledge this, nor have you in other threads. instead you just ask another question...


Is it really too onerous to acknowledge that somebody replied to your question ? Right or wrong, agree or disagree, they did take the trouble.

Hey buddy, its not that hard, you just move the mouse over that little button that says THANKS and you click it.


cool bananas ... and no offence ... greg

Greybeard

no offence taken. one drink too many!!

actually I think I have offended you. I appologise

north