Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 26 Feb 2005 18:15:32 -0800

Widdershins wrote:
> X-No-Archive:Yes
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:44:23 GMT, Edmond Wollmann
> <arcturianone@earthlink.net> licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil,
> and wrote:
>
> >TomGee wrote:
> >> > > > > I agree, as the notion of space expanding is so stupid
that
> >> it's
> >> > > > > embarrassing to hear it.
>
> What kind of Luddite thinking is this?
>
>
Nothing in my statements indicate I am a stick-in-the-mud when it come
to new tech stuff and new ideas. In fact, my ideas are those never
heard before, where your statements below simply parrot what we were
taught in school by the know-nothing teachers, and by your own
assumptions of their teachings.
>
>
> The fact is that the galaxies
> are moving away from each other. That simple fact is documented
> by observing the doppler shift in the light that comes back to us.
>
>
No one is disputing that; certainly not me. If you think so, as you
imply, you have misread or misinterpreted what was said.
>
>
> If
> the glaxies are moving apart from one another, the space between them
> increases.
>
>
Yes, of course, but you misunderstand that what is being claimed is not
that "the space between them increases", or that the distance between
them increases, but that the amount, or area, of space between them
increases. IOWs, there is an added amount of space between them and
that is why they can move apart from each other while still maintaining
their coordinates in space. Re-read my explanation in my previous post
and see if you can better understand the point.

If more space is added between them, where does the additional space
come from? Obviously, say most, from the BB! But if space came out of
the BB, that space which has already come out is simply still moving
outward ahead of the newer space which came out after it, but in such a
scenario, there is no way for new space to be added in-between the
space which has already come out! But what other answer can there be
to explain the moving apart of galaxies while they maintain their
original coordinates, other than that space is expanding? My model
contends that in the absence of an explanatin as to where the new
additional space which supposedly fills the distance between the
galaxies as they continue to move apart, it may be that space itself
does not expand, but the matter which comprises space, i.e., dark
matter, expands to repulse visible matter into ever smaller
aggregations of positive mass and energy.
>
>
> In the Einstinian model of a curved space/universe, space
> must expand to account for galactic movement.
>
>
Sure, something must expand, but how would space expand? You tell us.
>
>
SNIP
>
>
> >> > > That is the way AE explained how a rocketship on the surface
of
> >> Earth
> >> > > is really moving in curved space. He said that the ship
appeared
> >> still
> >> > > to us but was really moving through time in his 4d parallel
> >> universe.
> >> > > I assume he meant that since time and space are
interdependent, the
> >> way
> >> > > he saw it, moving through time must also mean that an object
is
> >> moving
> >> > > through space as well.
> >> > I agree, but these are issues of perception, not physical laws,
>
> Bullhockey! The rocketship is a phyisical construct. The patch
> of dirt it rest on is also physical. How can the laws of physics not
> apply?
>
>
You said these were issues of perception, and I agreed, but such issues
are mere opinion and NEVER physical laws!
>
>
> >> My model does not deny that space exists, only that space did not
come
> >> out of the BB, but most of what did come out is dark matter and it
> >> filled and continues to fill absolute space to the extent the
expansion
> >> has occurred.s edges. Absolute space, then, is what existed
before the
> >> BB and still exists except for that part of it which our universe
is
> >> occupying. Since it has dark and visible matter in it, it is no
longer
> >> absolute space because it is no longer "devoid of anything in it".
> >
> >But I am speaking of the area if you will, that has NO matter in it,
> >that space in my view IS the product of the matter, even though it
> >contains none.
>
>
How can space be created by (a product of) something which depends on
it? Makes no sense.
>
>
> Are you talking about the dust, gas, planets, stars, and the rest of
> the crap that fills the cosmos? In near space, there is approximately
> one molecule/cu. meter. The unoccupied distance between those
> molecules is "empty space," i. e. a place devoid of physical matter.
>
> >
No, those are places devoid of visible matter, but filled
w/dark(invisible) matter.

TomGee 02/26/05

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "How Does Light Know How Fast to Travel?"
    ... I am not an expert on modern aether theory but my understanding is that it says that all matter is essentially made of aether. ... matter shrink by the same amount when moving in it, ... Your problem as with others on the NG insist on judging ideas you disagree with by old fashioned standards which have long been abandoned by mainstream physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... are moving away from each other. ... How can the laws of physics not ... Absolute space, then, is what existed before the ... Since it has dark and visible matter in it, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... are moving away from each other. ... How can the laws of physics not ... Absolute space, then, is what existed before the ... Since it has dark and visible matter in it, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... are moving away from each other. ... How can the laws of physics not ... Absolute space, then, is what existed before the ... Since it has dark and visible matter in it, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Inflationary Theory ; Im confused
    ... > are moving away from each other. ... does not expand, but the matter which comprises space, i.e., dark ... > must expand to account for galactic movement. ... How can the laws of physics not ...
    (sci.math)