Summations Only

I'm talking about what we observe. Quite obviously I am talking about the implications of what is present in the observable universe. Do you know what it means for the universe to be flat?

I disagree. Your video was a hoot! I just wish you had covered the average density stuff.

Your overly simplistic ideas do not capture all the possibilities (and include quite a few impossibilities). In the unlikely case that you are actually interested in some reality, try this link.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

But you are obviously and continuously confusing weight and density.

Bullshit. You are merely repeating debunked claims without addressing any of the many fatal problems of your "theory". Does that sound scientific to you?

So where are the blue-shifted galaxies your "theory" predicts? Have you seen them or is pushing them outside the OU just an ad hoc assumption with no supporting evidence that you made up to avoid admitting your error?I sure know which one I'd pick.

When you start being scientific then people will treat what you say scientifically. Until then I think most here would agree that that earthy Anglo Saxonism is the best characterization.Obviously you're *trying* to be scientific, but you're failing miserably.--Percy

This again sounds like you're referring to a transition period between the end of inflation and the beginning of a normal universe. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with inflation. The end of inflation was around T=10^-32 seconds, and I'm talking about a period well after that.I do have a question, though. Why do you say the expansion rate at that time would "necessarily" have been slowing? There seems no reason to presume that. It could as easily have been accelerating. It would have been a function of the density of the universe at the end of inflation.Anyway, ignoring the inflationary period, the rate of expansion in the early universe was decelerating until somewhere between 5 and 10 billion years ago, and after that it began accelerating.Maybe while we figure out what each other is saying it will set an example for Peter of what a scientific dialog really looks like.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Peter, trust me, no one here is talking about the unobservable universe. When we say "universe" we're talking about the observable universe. We know the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing until 5 to 10 billion years ago, and then the expansion started accelerating. We know this because of observations of type 1a supernova. In case there's any doubt in your mind, these observations were of the observable universe.--Percy

Well hold on... You're finally beginning to realize the error of your ways and now you want to run away from it?You're not going to get any respect with that attitude, Peter. Yes, I've read it. I've watched your youtube video. I'm familiar with your idea. I've already refuted it, it is wrong.And your 'Observational Evidence' is terribly weak. You don't have any reason to think the universe as a whole behaves like air flying towards a vacuum other than a few superficial similarities. Your argument is as inane as this:

• An apple is red, and shiny, and juicy, and it is a fruit.
  ​
• A firetruck is red and shiny, and its full of water thereby making it "juicy", therefore a firetruck is a fruit.

That's essentially what we're all dealing with here, Peter.

I really doubt that he's realizing any error of his ways. He's tried to run away from his "maximum average density" hogwash,,only to return to it. He can't conceive of any error on his part, but he knows he can't define "maximum average density" and obviously he can't defend any of his claims with anything other than repetition.Sheesh, even Simple was more interesting than this. Where are the Karl Crawfords, the David from Texas's, the afdaves of yesteryear who actually tried to support their drivel?

I have to ask why this thread ever got promoted even into Free For All in the first place.

No Nukes, the expansion began slowly (as in the Big-Wheeze) and has since accelerated. The expansion continues to accelerate in the manner of any Inward Expansion - Outward Expansions all slow down and stop.I explain all this in my 'Observational Evidence on page 1. I wish you would read it.As for the CBR, I explain that in my very first post. It's all around us, perfectly smooth (COBE) and slightly pinker at one end than the other. It's left-over heat from the time the Universe was evolving.If we were falling into an ongoing attractive Central Point, the actual mechanics of the situation might surprise you. You talk about 'spaghettification' that supposedly might occur as you accrete onto a black hole. We are not at that stage yet.Acceleration leads to Loss of Pressure and that's Expansion - where everything is moving away from everything else. Any expanding system, in the absence of any outside forces, will expand evenly. That's not me - that's Physics 101.And those stars that are leaving us at the speed of light, we don't see them, we see where they were - a few thousand years ago. It takes that long for the light to travel (red-shifted of course) to us here on Earth.

Dust bunnies moving towards each other will produce a blue shift. We observe a red shift in the universe.

Coyote, welcome to my thread. You see, I believe in Gravity. Gravity built the Universe, and Gravity runs it. It's Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth, not Anti-Gravity.Yes, the rest of the world thinks the Universe is operated by Ant-Gravity. They say Anti-Gravity is pushing the Universe apart. Now, if you push something, you're going to get Compression and Compaction - both warming effects.Now, if you pull something - there is always the danger you might pull it apart. Anyway, if you pull it, there's going to be de-compression, and even expansion, both cooling effects. We're cooling down, as I
hope you know.Anyway, nice chatting to you. Hope you get back to me.