Summations Only

No Nukes, I'm not interested in current Theory Yopu ta;k about a Universe nobody can see - all we can see is the Observable Universe (OU).You have an expansion that started fast, slowed down, and then accelerated. Allow me to tell you what happened......The expansion started slowly and has since accelerated - continuing to accelerate in the manner of any Inward expansion as I describe on page 1.You talk about Space expanding around different objects, I talk about expansion as objects moving away from each other. My way's simpler, saying the same thing. Anyway, Space is a vacuum. How do you get a vacuum to expand?

That's okay, panda. I can hold my own, especially against people like you.I have the copyrite on this 'black hole where I say it is,' from the Library of Congress, Washington DC. fr5pom 2003.There is a book, also, by me, about this black hole - Box 994 Oakville ON L6K 0B1.

Percy, that video was not good.

JonF, you're right. I don't usually talk about 'weight', I prefer 'Mass'. but against such forces one does what one can.

From the Copyright Office website: Online registration of a basic claim in an original work of authorship - $35.00.Anybody can copyright anything for that online fee of $35.00. That doesn't mean it is worth anything--the Copyright Office makes no such judgement. It just means you sent it in (whatever) and paid your fee. I could copyright this post for $35.00, and it would convey exactly nothing about the accuracy or the worth of this post.It seems what you are attempting here (poorly) is an Argument from Authority.Sorry, the Copyright Office acceptance of your submission conveys no such authority. Your work will have to stand or fall on its own merits.However, that you feel the need to seek some outside authority for your work bodes ill for its content and worth...

I can only repeat what I already told you way back in Message 72. When the expansion settled down after the period of inflation around 13.8 billion years ago, it was decelerating. The expansion was decelerating for billions of years until it began accelerating between 5 and 10 billion years ago. This is from the Wikipedia article on the Accelerating Universe: A redshift of z~0.5 corresponds to around 5.5 billion years ago. Here's an excerpt from the abstract of a technical paper titled The Turning Point for the Recent Acceleration of the Universe with a Cosmological Constant: A red shift of .67 corresponds to about 9 billion years ago. Gee, Peter, how could you not know that the expansion hasn't always been accelerating? Yes, we know you think this. So since the expansion was decelerating until around 5 billion years ago when it began accelerating, how did an outward expansion suddenly become an inward expansion?--Percy

The period of decelerating expansion I referred to was not inflation, see my previous message for more info.--Percy

Percfy, look - I object to people saying "bullshit' in my thread. I'm trying to keep this scientific. Does that register with you?

too soon.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Darwin had the same problem, JonF.And where can I find an 'infinite' cloud of hydrogen?Look, I agree the Observable Universe is expanding (exponentially, in my opinion) and that the expansion is accelerating and continuing to accelerate, in the manner of any Inward expansion, explained in my "Observational Evidence' on page 1.And I'm glad to hear you admit you can't see past the Observable Universe. I can't either.

Darwin had the same problem, JonF.And where can I find an 'infinite' cloud of hydrogen?Look, I agree the Observable Universe is expanding (exponentially, in my opinion) and that the expansion is accelerating and continuing to accelerate, in the manner of any Inward expansion, explained in my "Observational Evidence' on page 1.And I'm glad to hear you admit you can't see past the Observable Universe. I can't either.

Well said, No Nukes.
The Universe this, and the Universe that - how can you talk about the Universe, when all we can see is the Observable Universe (OU)?The Universe is flat? Who decided that?Or maybe, No Nukes, I'm wrong about you, maybe you can see beyond the OU? why won't you tell me?

You asked for evidence that expansion had decelerated before accelerating again. I provided reasons why scientist understand that state of affairs to be reality. My reasons are based on what is actually observed in the observable universe. Does it really make sense for you to ask for an explanation and then to refuse to hear or consider the explanation once it is provided?I suppose it does given that you don't really care about reality as much as you want your silly musings to be correct. In other words, you don't even understand the theory that you denigrate. Your explanation does not explain the origin or the uniformity of cmbr within the observable universe. That's enough reason to reject your explanation. No your way does not say the same thing.Do you understand that if the observed expansion actually consisted of objects moving through space as per your inane proposal, that distant observable objects would have to be moving faster than the speed of light relative to us in order to produce the red shifts that are observed? That's yet another reason to reject your proposal.And I will repeat yet another reason to reject your folly. Acceleration towards a singularity will not produce uniform expansion. In fact, in directions perpendicular to the direction of motion, we would expect to see objects moving closer to each other. That state of affairs is not observed. Edited by NoNukes, : Waste of @##$% time.

Percy, you're telling me the Universe did this and that - but you can't see the Universe any more than I can. All we can know about is the Observable Universe.Nobody can see the Universe, tho' many pretend. We should confine ourselves to discussing the Observable Universe and its 'accelerating expansion.' That's what's important.

Of course, Percy. My point was that a decelerating expansion period would necessarily have to exist at some time between inflation and the current slow but accelerating expansion we have now. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add quote from message