Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.
|
Huh ? Not sure the meaning of this remark ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
The parts that contract are those that matter we can see eg, towards a gravity sink such as a star, black hole , cluster of galaxies such as the great attractor.
The expanding parts are the jets that we see on Stars, Black holes and the intereatcion between stars and galaxies.
|
What a component does compared to whole is like have the 4 blind sufi's looking at the 4 different parts of the elephant to determine how old the elephant is. ??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
The expansion that people talk about is time/space and not actual distance.
|
In cosmology basically (at cosmological distances)
Distance = Time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
I'm more interested in understanding what the hell is going on.
|
So am I. That is why if I thought like you I would not just
Ignore Redshift and discount it. I would at least consider why it appears to be somewhat consistent. I will grant the Hubble constant still fluctuates a bit
due to the patchwork in the way it is put together across the cosmological scale. If it is flawed, it in these assumptions that this is OK (kinda' like the small angle approximation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Too busy reading papers and papers to find out why the BBT become the standard model. Where did science go wrong and for what reason. I assume that most scientists have a head on their shoulders and yet there is a mountain of information that is in conflict with the BBT.
|
There is that myopic flaw in your thinking again. "Science didn't go
Wrong ?!?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Just to support the BBT because its the standard is a great mistake.
|
This I do not do. I do support BBT over others as it is
More Accurate at describing behavior in the universe.
maddog
