Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
My friend...
|
A presidential candidate said that as he was about to lecture about the "error of our ways". He lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
...uses a gyroscope to align itself--why would the Universe G' be any different. . .
|
An allegory in of itself does not constitute as evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
The question seem to be is the Universe rotating or expanding.
|
Not necessarily. Rotation does not depend on Expansion or visa versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
What mass or radiations are rotating is another question?
|
nonsequitur. Que ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
Huble's latest deep space stereo photos express indirectly toward rotation rather then expansion--- less there would be no free fall within the INS, and the spherical clusters of galaxies (in spherical vortexs like huricanes on the earth) are easly seen in Huble's photos.
|
Please give a reference of such an example photo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
Free fall being a demonstration of the equivalence principal--the feather and the ball falling at the same rate from the leaning tower of Piza-etc
|
You have your facts wrong. Principle of Equivalence was Einstein's method of showing how a 1g gravity field was equivalent to acceleration at 1g (for example). You ball & feather example was attempted by Galileo. This was demonstrated effectively on the moon (without air resistance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
The rotating Universe could qualify as the source of the equivalence principal. Of course the big bang follows the same concept-- in fact millions of them do. So does the Earth.
|
Extrapolation and conjecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
However the expansion or decay hypothesis--does not permit an equiivalence principal to exist on the space station.
|
Huh ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
This Univers's gravity G' is a complicated equation that no man will ever solve--it is a hypothesis only--not to be mistaken with the formula G on earth.
|
Predicting what will happen in the future is risky business. Who knows maybe a Quantum description of Gravity is possible (with string or without). I do suspect some assumption we have made in the last few hundred years so that we have taken to be sacred will have to be eliminated. Who is to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRIPRO
One's belief in a Big Bang that started it all--is ludicrous.
|
So you like Pluto here both seem to think the conventional wisdom about the BBT treat it like some explosion is what created the universe. Maybe go read that website alread listed here (TalkOrigin) in this thread somewehere above. The BBT is a description of the initial expansion to now.
Let us not become a Luddite.[/quote]
I don't think I have been called a "Luddite" before... I am honored to be considered an "old fuddy duddy".
Let's see - from Websters' the Definition for Luddite is
Luddite [n. LUH-dite] The noun Luddite specifically refers to one of a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom. Under cover of night and generally masked, the workers often destroyed the equipment that had displaced them. Today the word broadly refers to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods.
The name Luddite is presumed to come from the leader of these angry workmen: Ned Ludd. The Leicestershire worker is said to have rushed into a stocking weaver's house and destroyed his equipment. More about Ned Ludd and the Luddites:
http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_whats.htm and
http://publish.uwo.ca/~nallen1/ludd.htm.
Now if I understand both and your and Pluto's objections about BBT and sincere nature of tearing down the scaffolding of workability to return to some pastoral earlier time of Steady State Theories by Fred Hoyle, et al.
I might from the above definition construe both of your fetal attempt to shoot it down as Luddite-like behavior.
As for the root idea you started with -- rotation of the universe. I might agree with you in principle (though for different reasons). I originally while in high school thought the universe could be with some initial rotation. I never figured a method to measure it. In those times the conventional wisdom had the universe as thought to be closed. Thus and such expansion would only slow down to a stop and turn around. I have conjectured if
Quasars were cosmological, and the universe were closed, and these events all seemed to be no more than light-days across that maybe they just copies of each other.
This was also before a Quasar spectrum could be resolved either. This turned out not to be the case nor now known the universe found now to be accelerating outware and not slowing down. Though I digress.
To be able to resolve a rotation of the whole universe -- you would need a background to measure against. Maybe another method can be done. This is open in my mind.
maddog
