Bang/Crunch Revisited

[modest]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Psssst! Modest, I quit the atom-in-balloon-membrane metaphore repeatedly in last post. (You took it *way* too literally.) The atom was not in the hollow of the balloon anyway but surrounded by other atoms/cosmi (in the balloon membrane) which we can not see but which could well be exerting gravitational force on ours.

That's not at all what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

As you know, the universal law of gravitation states that all masses attract all other masses, directly with amount of mass and inversely with the square of the distance between masses. (We have covered this a few times before!)
So, if there is a lot of mass out there beyond our "sphere of visibility" (event horizon) it could well be pulling our visible cosmos outwardly, accelerating the rate of expansion, as we observe.

It seems you are bent on totally ignoring what I post and going ahead with your agenda to correct my misconceptions (as always!)

I said:

Yeah, I understand. That doesn't work. Our visible universe is spherical. If we say it is of low density and beyond that area (surrounding us and our visible universe) is an area of high density then we cannot expect the shell of high density to have any gravitational effect on our visible universe. This was known in Newton's time. It is proved on this page,

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I asked a lot of questions in last post. The most direct and fundamental was a repeat asking if you know the difference between the theory of "expanding space as a medium" (inflation theory, curved, shaped space, etc.) and the obvious increasing distances (space) between objects which are simply moving away from each other.

Yes, I told you. The difference between expanding space and things moving through space away from a center is a coordinate choice. I gave a link that explains. That is different, however, from the difference between these two things:

• expanding space
• the increase in distance between all measured distances on a metric

I don't think there is a difference between those two things.

~modest

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

So, if there is a lot of mass out there beyond our "sphere of visibility" (event horizon) it could well be pulling our visible cosmos outwardly, accelerating the rate of expansion, as we observe.

Gravity is propagated at the speed of light. If the sun were to disappear instantly, the Earth would still orbit the gap where the sun used to be for a full eight minutes, before continuing in a straight line. If there is any matter outside our horizon, it cannot have any gravitational influence on us, nor on objects we view, regardless of how far they are.

Let's say there's a galaxy 10 billion light years away. Let's say that galaxy is receding from us at speed x. You propose that speed to be due to the gravitational attraction of some gravity source outside our visible horizon. Fair enough. But keep in mind that if your theory holds true, then the galaxy only responded to the attraction of the object once that object was inside it's horizon - and then from that point forward, the information of that gravity source and the galaxy's reaction thereto, would both travel towards us at the speed of light. In other words, we would be able to enumerate those gravity sources, in other words, if there are any objects able to infer any gravitational pull on any massive objects within the boundaries of our visible universe, we would be able to see it - it simply has to exist in our visible universe. If any massive object is being attracted towards any object outside our visible universe, we would not have seen that object reacting to it, yet. Mass outside our horizon simply cannot cause the Hubble Flow. In other words, once again, you're flat-out wrong, and this merely serves to illustrate once again that its impossible to hold a serious conversation with you regarding these topics. And the above is not merely me sticking to "science dogma". If you get off your high horse for a minute and think about it, you should understand it.

You simply display a failed understanding of the matters at hand, Michael.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

It seems you are bent on totally ignoring what I post and going ahead with your agenda to correct my misconceptions (as always!)

Michael, Michael, Michael. It's not us. really. It's you, dude. You want to engage us in a conversation where you repeatedly demonstrate you're completely out of your depth. Go to the library. Get a good book on cosmology. Get a good book on astronomy. Get a primer for relativity. Really. It'll be no skin off your nose, and we might actually hold a decent conversation with you. Currently, it's like talking to a third grader who knows everything and flat-out refuses to listen, even when proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

If you can not or will not answer this question directly, our conversation is over.

Michael, this conversation has been over for a while. You simply refuse to read our posts and understand where you're going wrong and insist on making the same logic failures all over again. I'm moving for thread closure, because I'm sure as shit not going to repeat my self over and over and over again because you do not want to understand, and you're hell-bent on sticking to your visions.

Thread closed. Cheers, mik I el.