Bang/Crunch Revisited

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I have already described this envisioned mini-cosmos (on scale of an atom deep within the "rubber membrane") as the cosmos we can see, i.e., the sphere of visibility often called our "cosmic event horizon." So, clearly, if you had read and understood the above, you would realize that, in this model, we obviously can not see "neighboring atoms" as they would be beyond our event horizon of visibility.
I keep repeating because what I say is not comprehended the first time nor often after several repetitions.

You can keep repeating it till you're blue in the face. The analogy is invalid, as we repeatedly explained to you.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So I "see" two scales of expansion... the mini "atom" (with its bang/crunch perpetual cycle) and a maxi "balloon" cosmos, which science will never observe by presently available means. So, no, it is not "falsifiable" but it is what I have "seen" anyway.

Your magical "visions" have absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever. There does not seem to be any way to explain to you how ludicrous your proposal of allowing "Visions" as scientific evidence is. From an objective, empirical point of view, those are the ramblings of a nut. Unfortunately for your argument, science endeavours to be objective and empirical. Hence your entire proposal is chucked out the back door, based on the rules of evidence alone. Please attempt, at least, to comprehend this.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

It does make more sense than "turtles all the way down and all the way up, "however. (Ref: Wilber's cosmology of holons... tongue in cheek of course.)

It does not, in fact. Both are based on zero evidence. Both dip into the pool of metaphysics, a matter on which Hypography, and Science in general, has exactly zero opinion. This is a Science site.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

BTW, I like science based on observable/detectable phenomena, like objects, radiation, plasma, etc in dynamic action *in space.* Space is not such a phenomena, tho I totally understand it as a "metric" with three coordinates... 3-D space... and of course "it takes time for things to happen... tho time is not a "local environment" different for each point of observation.

Imaginary dimensions and singularities and cosmos magically appearing out of nothing is not, in my opinion, science.... or it is the leading edge of envisioning prior to evidence in support... like what I "see."

I have now repeated the evidence towards the existence of the expansion of space quite a few times. If you are pissed of about the tone of my posts, please go and do a study on the expansion of space and how that carries the galaxies along. Somebody else will explain it to you in a book, somebody who has no preconceptions about your "magical visions" and "spiritual" claptrap. It will be a completely objective explanation to you, based on empirical evidence. You will find it in any library. Look for "An Introduction to Astronomy" or "Astronomy for Dummies". The Astro101 stuff should be sufficient, and it seems you could do with a read. These are the basics, Michael. And you've got it very, very wrong. And we're getting tired of having to repeat points that you either don't seem to read, or merely ignore because it doesn't support your personal theory of everything. This behaviour, by the way, is the typical behaviour of an internet forum troll, and one which we are getting very fed up with. READ the replies to your posts, and TRY TO UNDERSTAND why you're missing the point. If we have to keep repeating ourselves towards you, then this thread serves no purpose at all, except maybe to exercise our typing skills and develop an advanced form of hypertension.

READ THE POSTS.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

This to others here... a one post fits all approach...
And yes there are others who question the ontology of space and time and, of course, spacetime. *Please* don't make me repeat those links.

Why, then, is it that we have to rehash the same points over and over to you? Don't you "get" it, or are you merely being obtuse?

Michael, please see this as a formal warning. We don't have to keep doing this. This thread, and most others where you engaged in, only carried on for how long they did because we are such awesomely nice guys, and we want to give everybody his time on the soapbox. But when that guy doesn't want to get off his soapbox, and willfully ignores what others have to say, then our patience wears thin.

We have now reached that point.

[Michael Mooney]

First, I must apologize for my mixed metaphors in various posts. One metaphor has the "rubber molecules of the big balloon" ("maxi-cosmos") as galaxies and its atoms as stars, as Modest pointed out.. This was to illustrate that the "balloon" I *envision* was actual "stuff" moving in an outward trajectory, (the rubber, not "space itself expanding.")
Then, in order to compare the scale of the cosmos we can observe to the "big balloon" I made our sphere of visibility an "atom" within the rubber of the balloon. (This both before and after Modest's Illustration with a sphere nearly the diameter of the balloon's membrane thickness.

In any case, of course what we can see is isotropic and everything is observed to be moving away from everything else... whether or not our cosmic event horizon is deep within a larger scale expanding cosmos... which we will never "see" by conventional means.

We will never see the proposed "strings" of which "membranes" are said to be made, either, but somehow that is ok with the scientific community while "the atom-cosmos within the Greater Balloon" is here considered "wacko" fantasy born of "magical vision" ... inappropriate to science. As I've repeated ad nauseam , I am not claiming that my visions are more valid than ordinary "envisioning" but no less valid either until the evidence supports one version over the other.
I am still waiting for the verdict on "clashing membranes" as the real and true origin of the cosmos. Likewise the Original Singularity where everything was packed into a "point of zero volume" before the Bang, and It came into existence by the ultimate cosmic magic.

"Inquiring minds" like mine must speculate on where it all came from... as I don't believe in magic. (Visions are not magic... nor is telepathy or "action at a distance" throug an as yet unknown medium.)
If not some version of an oscillating (cyclical... bang/crunch) cosmos... what then?? (Like my spacetime thread... the original inquiry/ challenge of this thread remains unanswered.)

In reply to Boerseun's :

You can propose what you like space to be, yet you have to understand that the metric expansion of space is an observational fact - there are objects at the furthest reaches of the universe receding from us at faster than the speed of light, for instance. This only, and I have to stress the only bit, makes sense if space itself is expanding, allowing objects to travel faster than light relative to us, but slower than light relative to the space it's going through.

....

First, as I have said, I understand space as a "metric" with three coordinates (volume) and that all movement through space takes time (has duration.) But I ask you again, Boerseun, what is it that science says is expanding? Ontologically, what is space, that it can expand as distinct from stuff *in space* moving away from other stuff... resulting in "more space" between them?

Now, regarding your belief and the scientific evidence for the claim that

metric expansion of space is an observational fact

...

Please Google the "redshift controversy" (I've just reviewed several sites on it) and post your critique.

(See Arp's book "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies," "Interstellar Media,"( Berkeley) and " Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.")

Then, please share your take on the ongoing controversy over the ontology of spacetime. I shared several links on this in the "spacetime thread... which I certainly would not want to *repeat* here.
No, the "expansion of space" is not an "observational fact" but is in fact still a very controversial concept.
Michael

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Then, in order to compare the scale of the cosmos we can observe to the "big balloon" I made our sphere of visibility an "atom" within the rubber of the balloon.

Thats fine, but your model still makes an incorrect prediction- we know the observable universe is isotropic to about 1/100,000, and we know the power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies.

Your model predicts a strong preferred direction. It is simply incorrect. Changing scale won't change that. The "Mooney Balloon" predicts the wrong power spectrum.

We will never see the proposed "strings" of which "membranes" are said to be made, either, but somehow that is ok with the scientific community while "the atom-cosmos within the Greater Balloon" is here considered "wacko" fantasy born of "magical vision" ... inappropriate to science.

Why won't we ever "see" strings? The theory DOES make predictions- some day they may well be verified (or they may not). String theory has implications for planck scale stuff. Your theory also makes predictions- wrong ones.

I like science based on observable/detectable phenomena, like objects, radiation, plasma, etc in dynamic action *in space.* Space is not such a phenomena, tho I totally understand it as a "metric" with three coordinates... 3-D space... and of course "it takes time for things to happen... tho time is not a "local environment" different for each point of observation.

Michael- you don't know the first thing about radiation, etc. You don't even know what a metric is! You don't have any real understanding of modern physics, and yet you make these sweeping pronouncements. Why should you be taken as more of an expert than the scientists who devote their lives to these issues? You can't even extract reasonable predictions from your own models!

What makes an electromagnetic field fit nicely into your ideas of ontology, but not a metric field? Why should every field but the metric be dynamics, but the metric static?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

First, I must apologize for my mixed metaphors in various posts. One metaphor has the "rubber molecules of the big balloon" ("maxi-cosmos") as galaxies and its atoms as stars, as Modest pointed out.. This was to illustrate that the "balloon" I *envision* was actual "stuff" moving in an outward trajectory, (the rubber, not "space itself expanding.")
Then, in order to compare the scale of the cosmos we can observe to the "big balloon" I made our sphere of visibility an "atom" within the rubber of the balloon. (This both before and after Modest's Illustration with a sphere nearly the diameter of the balloon's membrane thickness.

Size doesn't matter... or, uhhh... Scale doesn't matter. The scale factor is the same regardless of scale (scale being how big one thing is as compared to another).

Imagine it this way: Draw a dot on a string then stretch the string to four times its original size. The width of the dot will get four times larger. No matter how small you make the dot, it will still get 4 times larger when the string is stretched.

You have proposed that the visible cosmos is like an atom in the balloon. You presumably say this because the size of an atom does not change with the inflation of the balloon. But, our observable universe is changing size—it has doubled in size many, many, many times over. It did this isotropically while the motion of your balloon example is NOT isotropic.

Changing the scale of the observable universe in the balloon doesn't help with this. Scale doesn't matter. The balloon either needs to be 4 dimensional or you need to represent the observable universe with two dimensions. Otherwise the characteristic motion of the balloon is different from the characteristic motion of the universe.

Neither a single specific atom embedded in the surface of a rubber balloon or a group of atoms embedded in the surface of a rubber balloon expand isotropically. your model does not act the way our universe acts. It is falsified.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I ask you again, Boerseun, what is it that science says is expanding?

I've answered at least 10 times: "Distance" is expanding! The distance between things is increasing with time. The observable universe has expanded approximately 1,300 times since the surface of last scattering. This means the distance to an atom at the edge of the our observable universe which is currently 46 billion lightyears from us was 36 million lightyears from 'us' when it emitted the CMBR photon which we see today. The distance increased by a factor of 1292 in those ~13.7 billion years... the distance.

Expanding space is expanding distance. When you say "things move through space rather than space expanding" you are proposing that space is a thing—something which things can move "through". Physical cosmology does not need that kind of assumption. Space is distance. Things can't move through distance... things just move away from each other is all. All cosmological distances increase over time in a way that's best described by a scaled metric.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Please Google the "redshift controversy" (I've just reviewed several sites on it) and post your critique.

(See Arp's book "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies," "Interstellar Media,"( Berkeley) and " Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.")

We've all studied Halton Arp's anomalous redshifts. You can search astronomy and cosmology for "Halton Arp". His 'theory' is not compatible with cyclical or ekpyrotic models of cosmology and one wonders how you can advocate cyclical cosmology and object to redshift. Visit your library.

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

Thats fine, but your model still makes an incorrect prediction- we know the observable universe is isotropic to about 1/100,000, and we know the power spectrum of the CMB anisotropies.

Your model predicts a strong preferred direction. It is simply incorrect. Changing scale won't change that. The "Mooney Balloon" predicts the wrong power spectrum.

Given that science will never see, by presently existing means, the "maxi-cosmos" I have (let's say) "envisioned," (nor will we see strings or membranes likewise... so said two scientists at the end of a NOVA presentation on "string/M-theory")... I am willing to drop the "maxi-cosmic balloon" as a scientific unknowable and focus on the cosmos we can observe... whether it is an "atom" deeply embedded in a larger expanding, relatively thick membrane or shell of cosmic stuff or not. (Not on the "surface," Modest... you still don't get what I envision.)

The model I see of our observable cosmos is that it either explodes periodically from a central ball of "crunched" matter (many SMBH's after coalescing on the implosion half of the cycle, or (if bh's can not overcome gravity to explode) our visible cosmos is in an environment of once cooling plasma (now all the stuff we see) having jetted out from the axis of a really big pulsar-type spinning mass... such that our local environment (cosmic event horizon) can not see far enough to detect directional motion. Yes, scale does matter. ( A single atom in my body, if it were a conscious observer, would have no way of knowing whether I (this whole body) am walking down the street or orbiting Earth.

Why won't we ever "see" strings? The theory DOES make predictions- some day they may well be verified (or they may not). String theory has implications for planck scale stuff. Your theory also makes predictions- wrong ones.

I've studied string theory from the beginning, through all its permutations to the eleven dimensional theory which unites all five types of strings into one membrane. This is all metaphysical, theory with no evidence to support it. The concluding critique of the NOVA program just mentioned capped it as metaphysics and explained how small the proposed "strings" are, totally precluding observation... and the "membranes" are fantasies way less than microns apart... which are supposed to "clap together" and "create new universes" like ours.

So how exactly is it that a bang/crunch cosmology, on the scale of our visible cosmos "makes wrong predictions?"

Michael- you don't know the first thing about radiation, etc. You don't even know what a metric is! You don't have any real understanding of modern physics, and yet you make these sweeping pronouncements. Why should you be taken as more of an expert than the scientists who devote their lives to these issues? You can't even extract reasonable predictions from your own models!

Psychology 101: Never presume to tell another person what s/he knows or does not know. The rule derives from the obvious fact that I know what I know better than you do, which applies to all but the totally deluded, and I really don't qualify as the latter by clinical definition. (I am a psychologist, quite familiar with what delusion is.)
I used "radiation" to cover the whole realm of "what radiates"... not confined to "matter/plasma.\/energy. I also know the difference between space as volume described by the three coordinates and space as some "thing" that expands (has shape, etc.) (Space without defining boundaries is infinite and endless. Posit a boundary, if you will, to space. You can not. It *must* be infinite, or what lies beyond your proposed boundary/limit?)

What makes an electromagnetic field fit nicely into your ideas of ontology, but not a metric field? Why should every field but the metric be dynamics, but the metric static

?

Magnetic fields can easily and obviously be detected by what it is that they effect... from the ionized gases glowing as the "northern (or southern) lights" to iron filings on paper over a magnet. There is nothing static about stuff moving through space. But what do you think "space itself" is "made of" that it can expand and curve? The observable movements of *stuff in space* does not require that space "itself* is a thing with properties of malleability.

(Incidentally, why don't you answer my challenge that Doctordick mathematically explains relativity without "spacetime?")

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Size doesn't matter... or, uhhh... Scale doesn't matter. The scale factor is the same regardless of scale (scale being how big one thing is as compared to another).

See my reply to Erasmus above.

Imagine it this way: Draw a dot on a string then stretch the string to four times its original size. The width of the dot will get four times larger. No matter how small you make the dot, it will still get 4 times larger when the string is stretched.

In the real world (remember the real world?) an atom within the string will not stretch out as you stretch the string. Nuff said.

You have proposed that the visible cosmos is like an atom in the balloon. You presumably say this because the size of an atom does not change with the inflation of the balloon. But, our observable universe is changing size—it has doubled in size many, many, many times over. It did this isotropically while the motion of your balloon example is NOT isotropic.

I have *repeatedly* said that the "atom-cosmos" deep within the balloon membrane has the same expanding dynamic and isotropy as we actually observe. Of course the metaphor fails in this dynamic. It was only a size/scale reference to relate "our cosmos" to the larger context I envision.... as I explained in my last post.

As posted to Erasmus, I am abandoning the "atom in the balloon membrane metaphor because of just such literalism and distortion (of my model) as you just committed.

Changing the scale of the observable universe in the balloon doesn't help with this. Scale doesn't matter. The balloon either needs to be 4 dimensional or you need to represent the observable universe with two dimensions. Otherwise the characteristic motion of the balloon is different from the characteristic motion of the universe.

Three dimensional space and the "time" between one designated "now" and another will suffice perfectly well for both a cosmos such as we can observe and a larger one (if it exists as I envision it) that we can not observe. (The latter now left on the shelf of unknowables.)

Neither a single specific atom embedded in the surface of a rubber balloon or a group of atoms embedded in the surface of a rubber balloon expand isotropically. your model does not act the way our universe acts. It is falsified.

Again and again... tho not heard... The "atom" is seen as deep within the relatively thick balloon membrane, not on (in?) the "surface." Like the atom in the stretched string, it has its own dynamic, not distorted by the stretch of the balloon (or string.)But, unlike an atom (limit of the metaphor) our cosmos, does, as I see it, bang and crunch in perpetual cycles as a micro-system not being distorted by the larger context of the differential between the inner and outer surfaces of the "greater balloon."

I've answered at least 10 times: "Distance" is expanding! The distance between things is increasing with time. The observable universe has expanded approximately 1,300 times since the surface of last scattering. This means the distance to an atom at the edge of the our observable universe which is currently 46 billion lightyears from us was 36 million lightyears from 'us' when it emitted the CMBR photon which we see today. The distance increased by a factor of 1292 in those ~13.7 billion years... the distance.

I have agreed at least ten times that as objects move further apart the distance (space) between them *obviously!* increases. And equally as often I have repeated that this *fact* does not mean that "space expands!" Science's misconception, I maintain, is that "space itself" has such properties as being effected by gravity causing "it" to curve and, according to "inflation cosmology" "space itself" expanded rapidly after the big bang.
Which way do you want it? "Space expands"(etc., etc.) or the distance between objects increases as they move apart... which is blatantly obvious?

Expanding space is expanding distance. When you say "things move through space rather than space expanding" you are proposing that space is a thing—something which things can move "through". Physical cosmology does not need that kind of assumption. Space is distance. Things can't move through distance... things just move away from each other is all. All cosmological distances increase over time in a way that's best described by a scaled metric.

As immediately above. Space can be absolutely nothing... emptiness... nada... void... volume... and all "things" can still move "through this emptiness." (Where things exist, space is not empty.... this being a no-brainer, but seems it must be said anyway.
"Things can't move through distance." (??) Things moving through empty space either get closer or further apart (or stay the same distance apart if on parallel trajectories!) In so doing the distance between *things*either increases or decreases (or stays the same.)

The stuff of cosmos keeps on traveling in outward trajectory from whence it came. Space is the infinite emptiness in which, on whatever scale, this occurs. The ontology of space as an expanding medium is not an established fact but a disputable (and presently being argued) concept.

We've all studied Halton Arp's anomalous redshifts. You can search astronomy and cosmology for "Halton Arp". His 'theory' is not compatible with cyclical or ekpyrotic models of cosmology and one wonders how you can advocate cyclical cosmology and object to redshift. Visit your library.

I only cited the "redshift controversy" to dispute the claim above that "expanding space" is an established fact, where the standard interpretations of redshift is cited as a quasi proof... and gives distant galaxies a speed relative to Earth faster than light... which is also nonsense.

Once we dispense with such nonsense (with Arp's help) we can then argue against "expanding space" as supposedly proven by redshift. This is independent of which is ones favorite cosmology.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Yes, scale does matter. ( A single atom in my body, if it were a conscious observer, would have no way of knowing whether I (this whole body) am walking down the street or orbiting Earth.

A false analogy, every molecule in a rubber sheet knows if the sheet is being stretched.

I've studied string theory from the beginning, through all its permutations to the eleven dimensional theory which unites all five types of strings into one membrane....

No you haven't. String theory is a highly mathematical subject, and you have very limited math at your disposal. If you cannot do basic calculations with a theory, you have not studied it, and you do not understand it. If you have next to know understanding of quantum mechanics and next to no understanding of general relativity, how can you study the attempt to unify them? Reading popular science books and watching NOVA specials is not studying a theory.

So how exactly is it that a bang/crunch cosmology, on the scale of our visible cosmos "makes wrong predictions?"

It predicts that acceleration of the universe should be slowing down. It is not.

Never presume to tell another person what s/he knows or does not know.

I have witnessed your ignorance of basic physical and mathematical ideas in dozens (if not more) of posts. You CANNOT understand the idea of space (or spacetime) as a metric without understanding what a metric is. You have yourself admitted your ignorance of math, which precludes knowing what a metric is!

Magnetic fields can easily and obviously be detected by what it is that they effect... from the ionized gases glowing as the "northern (or southern) lights" to iron filings on paper over a magnet.

Why should there be a magnetic field, you can't see it. You can measure the effect of one piece of lodestone on another, or a moving current on a lodestone,etc. Why create this magnetic field, what is its "ontological status?"

(Incidentally, why don't you answer my challenge that Doctordick mathematically explains relativity without "spacetime?")

If you believe this, you do not understand what Doctordick has done. He has reorganized spacetime, not done away with it. He still has a 4 dimensional space, and has given up coordinate independence in favor of simplicity for one observer.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

In the real world (remember the real world?) an atom within the string will not stretch out as you stretch the string. Nuff said.

From your reply there is no way for me to know if you understood what I told you.

Get a rubber band, cut it, and lay it out flat in front of you. Draw some squares and rectangles on it. Then stretch the rubber band....



I scaled this virtual rubber band 126% (140% horizontally and 90% vertically) The scale factor is 1.26. The surface area of the rubber band was 40 cm² before it was scaled and 51.2 cm² after being scaled.

Each red square gets larger by a factor of 1.26. Each ends up 140% wider than before it was scaled and 90% its height before it was scaled. This is true of all the red squares regardless of their size. The big ones get 1.26 times larger and the really, really small ones get 1.26 times larger.

The same situation applies with embedding a sphere into a shell's thickness (i.e. the thickness of a rubber balloon). By whatever factor the circumference of the balloon enlarges when it expands, so too will the embedded sphere's diameter change by that factor making an oblate spheroid—regardless of how small the embedded sphere is. If the circumference of the balloon doubles in size then the diameter of the embedded sphere will double in size.

Likewise, by whatever factor the thickness of the balloon's rubber shrinks when the balloon expands, so too will the embedded sphere's axis shrink by that factor, further squishing it into an oblate shape. If the balloon's rubber thins to half its previous thickness then the embedded sphere's axis shrinks to half its original size. We would now have an embedded spheroid which is 4 times wider than it is tall.

Regardless of the size of the embedded sphere (i.e. observable universe), it ends up:

This is why your post #39 and #92 make no sense. Size has nothing to do with the change in shape of the embedded sphere... it's irrelevant to the problem with your model.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I have *repeatedly* said that the "atom-cosmos" deep within the balloon membrane has the same expanding dynamic and isotropy as we actually observe. Of course the metaphor fails in this dynamic.

As posted to Erasmus, I am abandoning the "atom in the balloon membrane metaphor because of just such literalism and distortion (of my model) as you just committed.

The metaphor fails in every conceivable respect. Nothing that humanity has ever observed regarding the nature of the cosmos is represented well by your model. And, you feel the need to blame that failure on the "literalism and distortion" of Will and I. Really? Can you imagine what would happen in a real scientific peer review?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Again and again... tho not heard... The "atom" is seen as deep within the relatively thick balloon membrane, not on (in?) the "surface."

"embedded in the surface" meant "embedded in the thickness of the rubber of the balloon". I understand your meaning.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Three dimensional space and the "time" between one designated "now" and another will suffice perfectly well for both a cosmos such as we can observe and a larger one (if it exists as I envision it) that we can not observe. (The latter now left on the shelf of unknowables.)

I think so too.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Which way do you want it? "Space expands"(etc., etc.) or the distance between objects increases as they move apart... which is blatantly obvious?

You don't know what you're talking about. There's no difference between "space expands" and "the distance between any two points increases with time". They are different English word descriptions for the same exact thing. It only matters to you which way it is said because you don't understand the fundamentals of the theory. You're objecting to a philosophical interpretation.

What does "x" mean in the Robertson Walker metric?...

Is it "space" or is it "distance"? When all values of x increase with time is "space expanding" or are "all values of distance on the metric increasing"?

When scientists explain these theories they'll say "it's as if space is expanding and the galaxies are riding along with the expansion". Or, "it's as if space is growing between galaxies". They are popularizing a concept which most people are not familiar with. It's an interpretation. It's a metaphor for how the metric behaves. You're refuting an interpretation!

There actually is meaning in that metric up there. There is meaning in the Freidmann Equation's scale factor. It translates directly into measurements people can make. It describes in a precise way the evolution of the universe. Why would you not put more time into actually understanding the science you're trying to object to? I don't understand what would be the down side to that.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I only cited the "redshift controversy" to dispute the claim above that "expanding space" is an established fact, where the standard interpretations of redshift is cited as a quasi proof... and gives distant galaxies a speed relative to Earth faster than light... which is also nonsense.

Arp's hypothesis was that distances between galaxies doesn't increase—that they are not moving at all (expanding space or otherwise). That you would cite such a thing while supporting cyclical cosmology...

He's a crackpot and his ideas on QSOs and anomalous redshift have been disproved. Experiments such as the Tolman surface brightness test have shown him quite wrong. Expansion is real. (Of course, by that I mean that the distance between all cosmically distant galaxies is increasing with time )

~modest

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Psychology 101: Never presume to tell another person what s/he knows or does not know. The rule derives from the obvious fact that I know what I know better than you do, which applies to all but the totally deluded, and I really don't qualify as the latter by clinical definition. (I am a psychologist, quite familiar with what delusion is.)

Where is it written that all pyschologist (or psychiatrist for that matter) are prohibited from
being deranged/deluded. We are not BTW presume to tell you what you do or don't know.
We are presuming to know that you appear not use said knowledge properly and therefore
may not have it all down that well. Like you don't know it. For instance a "metric" is a
measure (in particular a distance measure in most cases). You can think of a "yardstick".
So if the "distance" expanded (your yardstick), then your metric expanded. You missed
that. So I might presume that either you don't know what a metric is or you don't apply
what you know.
Isn't the delusional ?

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As immediately above. Space can be absolutely nothing... emptiness... nada... void... volume... and all "things" can still move "through this emptiness." (Where things exist, space is not empty.... this being a no-brainer, but seems it must be said anyway.
"Things can't move through distance." (??) Things moving through empty space either get closer or further apart (or stay the same distance apart if on parallel trajectories!) In so doing the distance between *things*either increases or decreases (or stays the same.)

Quantum Mechanically the Vacuum of Space is not empty. See the link borrowed below:

Copied from the Origin... thread from Astronomy forum:

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Interesting powerpoint slideshow here:
http://server.physics.miami.edu/~cgc/Miami2007/Burdyuzha.ppt

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I only cited the "redshift controversy" to dispute the claim above that "expanding space" is an established fact, where the standard interpretations of redshift is cited as a quasi proof... and gives distant galaxies a speed relative to Earth faster than light... which is also nonsense.

Once we dispense with such nonsense (with Arp's help) we can then argue against "expanding space" as supposedly proven by redshift. This is independent of which is ones favorite cosmology.

Using the unconventional to lend evidence contrary to the norm is Not evidence.

This does not dispense. Sad you don't see that. You have already acknowledged "distance"
can expand. Since the metric by which you measure space is bigger, you have alreay
accepted space expands. QED.

maddog