The accelerating expanding universe

Good one, but I know what today is and so you can't fool me.Fortunately this was typed by creating motion.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Did you write this??Page Not Found??It seems you are using this style in your responses. It sounds like a bunch of rubbish, based on no real science.I think you should read this and let me know what you think.Chandra :: Photo Album :: Galaxy Clusters and Dark Energy :: 18 May 04

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

I don't have time to read all this now, but have you ever run into Viv Pope on-line? I'm sure you two would have a very interesting discussion.--Percy

I know the guy well already, thanks anyway, but no thanks I do not use his suggestions for writing like a genius. His concept is taken from the book by Gladwell and is flawed. You either born one or you are not and if you are that may propell you to dedicate 10.000 hours to perfecting the gift otherwise no amount of time spent is of much use.
I don't use automatic writing he advocates and I do not think that quantity of writing could lead to any quality of it- I think a lot before I write anything down which you don't seem to. If you disagree though with any of my points, say which and say why you think I am wrong.
Appeals to authority of links on dark energy do not impress me any either. I have some idea of what it is supposed to be already.
Tell me what you think it is in your own words and I'll say what I think about all that you reckon.
Catch my drift?

I'm sorry, you are confused. The FLRW (for short) solutions to to the field equations of General Relativity are how they known. This is a reference to the solutions, not to the physicists who lie behind those names. Yes, if I did mean something as vague as that, it would be somewhat a rephrasing of your vague statement in your initial post. But of course, that is nothing close to what I mean. Now you see, this is what happens when you pick up the ball and run. First, make sure you've picked up the right ball... Oh, I don't think I would ever want us to agree The problem is that you speak with such confidence yet your words betray a very weak understanding of the subject matter. It makes for a somewhat wasted conversation. For example, to not understand my references to time appearing with opposite sign to space is to not understand General Relativity at its most basic level.The simple facts are that observation strongly suggests that the Universe is spatially isotropic and homogeneous, yet temporally differentiated. This very isotropy and homogeneity results in a "natural" frame of rest, and asscoiated "universal" time that does in some way resemble the fixed time of Newtonian space-time. However, this is simply the time associated with the cosmological co-moving frame, and is no more the "real" time than any other time defined by individual observers moving in their own frames.This is basic undergrad cosmology and General Relativity, and is soundly backed up by observation. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Vive Pope? Not yet, but I'll check him out. Tell me in a nutshell what is his idea. I love clever crackpots. I may recommend to you another.
Luis Savain is the name. He is mad, arrogant and really smart and his logic is iron.
Try to argue against him without resorting to any appeals to authority and name-calling and he'll wrap your brain around his little finger in no time.

No, he is just an idiot Please see here for utter inanity and inability to understand the simplist of space-time concepts: Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition!There has to be some illness that gives rise to "I can't possibly see how this makes sense. Thus, everyone else is wrong" Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

You prevaricate and insinuate again your superior to mine knowledge and do not back it up with anything but more condescension. That's a game two can play.
The thing is you may pull the wool over the fools' eyes only as much as you can. You can't fool all the people all the time. Einstein did not like your theory. He was finding it absurd. He made no blunder you slander on him. He understood that coming from a Jesuit, the cosmic egg was just a reshuffle of the creation myth cloaked in the modern maths.
He just could not beat it with anything real at the time and he was confused himself with all the redshift, entropy and Olbers paradox and stuff. He had no good rational explanation to beat any of that so was made to swallow the nonsense that seemed the least implausible at the time, that is all.
Still, his opinion of Lemaitre's physics was very low. His acquiescing to the inevitable pressure of current opinion does not change the fact that he called it appalling.
Otherwise, whatever you insinuate, if time is relative per Einstein, before and after do make but relative sense. In some frames of reference the purported Big Bang is yet to occur while in other frames, the mythical Big Crunch or Rip or whatever the version of the scenario is already long past. The universe is long dead since and it is yet to be born. It's just the news of it are long in coming to your particular lab.

Show us the math. Nothing else is going to be the least bit convincing.

Well take a look at our GPS satellites their internal clock falls behind 7 nanoseconds per day, so in a sense we are time traveling from the perspective of the satellites not by much but we are.So if one would go near a black hole and stay there for a few days from everyone else's perspective one would have time traveled from the past. From your perspective it would seem that the whole universe fast forwarded in to the future.

What is "my" theory?And where is your evidence that Einstein did not like this theory, and found it absurd? Again, I think you have the wrong person. To which blunder are you referring?Possibly, I'm guessing, you are referring to his use of the Cosmological Constant in creating the Einstein Static Universe solution. That was no blunder in my book, no matter how much he berated himself for missing the opportunity to predict an expanding or collapsing Universe. No matter how distasteful he found the presensce of the constant term in the Einstein Equation, it is necessary for completeness without some further mechanism to facilitate its removal. And you criticise me for (alleged) appeals to authority Ah, you seem to be confusing Special Relativity for General Relativity. In an FLRW cosmology, there is no frame of reference that contains the Big Bang in its future light cone - for very obvious reasons when you consider the relevant space-time geometry. Like-wise, there is no frame of reference that conatins the Big Crunch in its past light cone. The Big Rip, however, should it exist... yes, that certainly lies in the past of some frames. So?

Well, if you really want the equations you can find them in the On the Geometry of Time in Physics and Cosmology by Alexander Franklin Mayer. You can find at Jay Pritzker fellowship for theoretical physics. 17 chapters out of 30 are free to download. That is the model I support currently and may continue to do so until and unless it is both tested against nature, found to be wrong, not fitting the observational data and refuted with sound maths and logic.
I would be very glad to get such a refutation from those of you who are clever with numbers. Sound logic propping the maths in the refutation is more than welcome and is a must too.
Otherwise, your claim that only numbers are convincing is not convincing itself. How then you can explain that the millions of people who can read no maths are being so convinced of the validity of the Big Bang paradigm? Can they all check for themselves whether FLRW metric clashes with the spirit of Einstein or not? It seems they could not care less and it seems that none of them ever gave it a thought. Well, if any numbers play any part in forming such a conviction that is rather called arithmetic. That conviction is in direct proportion to the number of times they have heard the theory to be declared to be correct. That's all the maths there is to it.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : Grammar corrections

No, I am not confusing the Special and General relativity. I reckon that is a flaw if there a contradiction and inconsistency between the two. That should be corrected while as it is the inconsistency is prayed upon. As a result the model you suggest has as its premises patent physical impossibilities. The universe inflating by billions of light years in a fraction of a second belongs to magic, not relativistic thinking. Speed of light is the natural speed limit and it is exceeded manifold by the space rushing in all directions in your head only.

Also if I quote Einstein's view on Lemaitre that is only because he confirms my own opinion on that fellow. And if my opinion of Lemaitre is low and I am very biased against him, I can tell you why exactly it is so very low and why I am so prejudiced against him not needing Einstein's or any body else's help.

duplicate removedEdited by NoNukes, : removed