Einstein's so-called 'Biggest Blunder' was right after all.

[RascalPuff]

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 (the law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon) - 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; quasi synonymous with the Unified Field Theory <finding electromagnetism and gravity to have the same causal identity>) - 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... Note the accumulating 'adjustments' to maintain 'the big bang' school...

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


Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... How goes it ??

Once again I am intrigued by your post. Could I get a clarification?

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'...

I am reading this to say that the 'space' between two objects that are not gravitationally bound together is increasing ?

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..

I'm Ok to here! Altho I think the word 'relatively' with all it's connotations could be dropped. Don't you mean 'the ratio of matter to space remains 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 (the law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon) - 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; quasi synonymous with the Unified Field Theory <finding electromagnetism and gravity to have the same causal identity>) - now unabashedly retrieved from 'retirement' and referred to as 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter <LCDM>'...

1.. If the ratio remains the same how is it that we observe space expanding but not matter, underlined in above quote ?

2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )

3.. Why haven't you posted on this subj in Roberts monthly theme ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Rascal ... How goes it ??

Once again I am intrigued by your post. Could I get a clarification?

Hey Greg. Good to hear from you.



I am reading this to say that the 'space' between two objects that are not gravitationally bound together is increasing ?

Yes.



I'm Ok to here! Altho I think the word 'relatively' with all it's connotations could be dropped. Don't you mean 'the ratio of matter to space remains the same' ?

Yes.


1.. If the ratio remains the same how is it that we observe space expanding but not matter, underlined in above quote ?

2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )

Space is observed to be in a state of accelerating expansion. The evidence is accumulating since 1976, and especially since 1996.

3.. Why haven't you posted on this subj in Roberts monthly theme ?

Have been unaware that's an appropriate location - will look into it.

cool bananas ... greg

The following illustration has been posted before, but does it help clarify the correlation of the expansion of matter with space?:

Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179
“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.


4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>).

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

2 .. How do you account for the agreement between the independant methods used that provide evidence for the 'standard theory's' conclusion that space is expanding ? (sorry for the convoluted sentence ... )

Space is observed to be in a state of accelerating expansion. The evidence is accumulating since 1976, and especially since 1996.

Rascal ... what I meant to ask was ... How is it that we observe space expansion but not matter. If they remain in ratio we should observe either 1.. they stay the same, or, 2 .. both expand in proportion.

Why do the current methods of observation only perceive space as expanding ?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Rascal ... what I meant to ask was ... How is it that we observe space expansion but not matter. If they remain in ratio we should observe either 1.. they stay the same, or, 2 .. both expand in proportion.

Why do the current methods of observation only perceive space as expanding ?

cool bananas ... greg

Greg: We do observe matter in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, we simply don't recognize it, because everything is expanding proportionately.

On the other hand, every time you drop something the test object is not moving from A to B... B is accelerating upward to overtake and strike A, generating the illusion that A is moving 'downward', instead of your entire frame of reference moving upward...

Current methods of observation are rejecting the offered alternative, because,

"obviously matter is not expanding".

Comparable to the age of the Copernican era, where the entire celestial vault is perceived as revolving around the earth, rather than the converse perspective of the earth spinning on its own axis and creating that illusion.

In this scenario, the parabolic arc of a thrown baseball, for example, is actually a straight line (Einstein called them 'geodesics')

Does that help any?

I wish you'd familiarize yourself with Parts I thru VII at
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie...

Maybe put it in your favorites and peruse it thoroughly so we can talk in more advanced phases of this issue...

Best regards to you and yours, Greg,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Rascal .... please be patient with me. I'm getting to a point I thought of while thinking on your theory over recent weeks

I wish you'd familiarize yourself with Parts I thru VII at
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie...

I have perused, some parts in depth, others read assiduously.

Greg: We do observe matter in a state of constantly accelerating expansion, we simply don't recognize it, because everything is expanding proportionately.

Why, if both expand proportionatley, do we only recognise space expanding, but not matter.? Logic would dictate that we recognise both or neither, but not one or the other only ???

On the other hand, every time you drop something the test object is not moving from A to B... B is accelerating upward to overtake and strike A, generating the illusion that A is moving 'downward', instead of your entire frame of reference moving upward...

I understand this point as well as the geodesic curves, no problem

Rascal, this is the point I thought of the other night. Perhaps it sounds stupid and I am hesitant to voice it, but here goes.

Your EinsteinGroupie pages and other postings all support your theory that everything is expanding. Good. In other words the conclusion drawn is supported by the facts you provide.

But the facts you supply can also be used to draw another conclusion. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, its certainly a bit crazy, but it is not ruled out by your evidence provided. At least, I can't find a loophole, perhaps you can.

If the reverse was happening, matter was compressing, or the opposite of expanding, the geodesics remain the same, the measurements remain the same, our recognition of events remain the same.

Therefore if both outcomes can be deduced from your supporting evidence then surely a third conclusion can be drawn, Nothing is changing ! Of course this is not meant literally, just that it is not ruled out.

What argument, or debating point, or idea can you give me that will only allow for one of these outcomes and will rule out the other two.

Rascal, I haven't really thought this through as I would normally do, and it well may be that I have missed something glaringly obvious. But the Maths that I checked describe acceleration and deceleration as the same. The Maths does not differentate between these two, only our perception does.

cool bananas .... greg

Could it be that we are in a contracting Universe, getting denser in proportion daily ... LOL

Perhaps we should have debated this in Roberts Monthly theme forum ??

[RascalPuff]

"Could it be that we are in a contracting Universe, getting denser in proportion daily?"

Greg:
In such a conditional universe as you propose - test objects would 'fall', up, instead of down.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Could it be a possibility, Rascal, that both space and matter expand proportionately, as you propose, but only spatial expansion is observed because the 5th and 6th dimensions you propose redshift their wavelengths due to the unobservable material expansion?

[RascalPuff]

Could it be a possibility, Rascal, that both space and matter expand proportionately, as you propose, but only spatial expansion is observed because the 5th and 6th dimensions you propose redshift their wavelengths due to the unobservable material expansion?

"Unobservable material expansion?"

Material expansion is felt and seen constantly.
It's what pins you to the omnidirectionally accelerating expansion of the earth.

By the definition of dimensions, matter is the 4th dimension (Einstein), and anything moves at right angles from it is the 5th - electricity moves at right angles out of the 4th (matter), whether it is redshifting or not.

Anything that moves at right angles out of the 5th dimension of electricity is the 6th, magnetism moves at right angles to elecricity, whether it is redshifting or not.

Matter is merely a more dense form of electromagnetism than light, which is a physical extension of matter, moving at a much faster rate of acclerating expansion.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Understood, Rascal! I'm not saying you're wrong in your proposals, only that the observed expansion of space - evidentially-based on Hubble's redshifting - can be explained by wavelengths redshifting due to increased absorption and emission of light as it propagates through denser media.

This way, your theory will ring true because there doesn't seem to be a way around keeping the proportionate relationship of matter and space expansion, while we only observe space expanding according to the above means of observation.

Do you not agree that c decreases proportionate to h increasing? The wavelengths get longer and longer exponentially.