Re: WMAP: New Satellite Data On Universe's First Trillionth Second

A SINGLE SIDED UNIVERSE ONLY! (HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER SIDE
WHATSOEVER!)

Someone in a movie once ask of Big Brother Cylon, "How can there be only
one side to a bargain?!" Big Brother's answer, "When there is no other
side!" (Thwack!)

Dark Age scientists are always flatly single-sided only! Their cosmologies
and universes and worlds (their minds, indoctrination, and premises) are
always flatly single-sided only.

Did you notice that if you tried to put that illustration of the universe
in a 3-d CAD program it wouldn't work? There's no 'space' in that
illustration. No space whatsoever (absolutely zero space). To mean, there's
no vacuum in that illustration. No vacuum whatsoever (absolutely zero
vacuum). Since there is no "vacuum," ipso-facto there is no "light" nor
"speed of light." The light is stop action. The light is stopped. The
illustration, like all its counterparts, illustrates a dead-frozen universe
having no motion, no movement, no travel, dead end to dead end one-hundred
percent entropically inert (one-hundred percent relativistic). No motion at
all much less any constant, consistent, variably varying motions throughout.

It's like looking to the far blue mountains from a distance then walking
to that spot where they are supposed to be and finding they are still
exactly the same distance from you as before you started walking, and where
you were then looking to them in the distance is exactly where you are now
still looking to them in the same distance. You walked and walked but never
once left the exact spot you're standing on. You didn't even make a circle
in walking. You walked and walked, and walked, but you didn't move at all.
One dimensional scientists [designing] a two-dimensional single-sided only
cartoon universe. Big Brother Earth-Utopia couldn't possibly design
brainwashing any better than that. The pure fact, though, of modeling a
two-dimensional single-sided only cartoon universe and world, and with it
Man and Life, and forcing that nothing but inflated (distortionist) cartoon
upon all, is a growing real-world reality of World Dystopia (Dark Age's
total war).

---------------

Distance-time does not mean a cosmological version of Creationism. It does
not mean the Cosmopolis is a Toon Town Universe (an inflationary cartoon).
The Earth does not begin in time and end in time where you observe its
horizon to be; just because it has a distance-time horizon everything that
comes toward you comes out of. You can't make each and every car coming out
of the constant of the distant horizon of Earth toward you the very first
car there ever was in time. But that is exactly what cosmologists try to
force with the constant of the distance-time horizon of the universe.

On Earth, though you can't see simultaneous space in the distance, you
perceive it all the time as if you see it because the limitations of the
speed of light make so little difference at distances on Earth. It makes
enormous difference at distances in the universe. It means a multiverse of
totally unobservable simultaneous [spaces] or universes, simultaneous with
us in time. "Background" is a universal constant, nothing more and nothing
less. [Cosmic background this] and [cosmic background that] are universal
constants, nothing more and nothing less. They've been made by ideologues
(by MEN) to be something more. Of course the universe expands away from us.
Of course it accelerates in that expansion away from us. So does the Earth
expand away from our local spot of it in all directions toward its horizon
in distance-time. So does the Earth accelerate in that expanding away from
our local spot of it in all directions. But the distance to the distant
horizon, compared to cosmological distances to the distant horizon, is
indistinguishable from zero.

----------------

You have objects in [ever constant motion traveling] a trillion trillion
trillion kilometers from you. The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per
second. Exactly when will light depict the latest change in position and/or
velocity, and/or state, of those objects in [ever constant motion traveling]
a trillion trillion trillion kilometers from you? The only answer is NEVER.
And it is the "ever constant" answer. The horizon of observability
collapses. And it [accelerates] in collapse.

Not so long ago an object was spotted to be in a galaxy some hundreds of
millions of light years from us with a redshift to it that told us that
particular object was not hundreds of millions of light years from us but
many billions of light years from us. The galaxy was hundreds of light years
away, the object [within it] was several billion light years away. What is
the outside limit of the speed of an implosion of a titanic object imploding
in on itself? And what would be the shift of the light from its collapse
[away] in horizon seen from any great distance away from it? It created an
optical illusion of vastly different distance from the distance of its
surrounding neighborhood. Its horizon of observability accelerated in
collapse to a degree matched only by the corresponding acceleration in
collapse of the universal horizon of observability, creating the same
correspondingly same degree of redshift. Was it a so-called nearer Big Bang
object? No. But in relative differential nearer in time, it matched up with
a whole lot of relative differential in time farther. The breakdown of
relativity matched up with THE BREAKDOWN OF RELATIVITY, as marked by the
degree of redshift.

Today's scientists cannot afford to believe in any "breakdown of
relativity," or that graduating redshifting of light would visibly mark such
graduating occurrence. Or that other things as well might also mark such
occurrence. And in place of "nothing" there being in place "optical
illusion." A distant picture that is not the reality and never was the
reality.

But who in cosmology today deals in any reality, or even any perception of
reality, in the first place? First of all they would have to be skeptical of
distant pictures. They are not skeptical concerning them. They talk the talk
of dead certainty.

GLB


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???
    ... to the beginning of the Universe. ... exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years ... How old are the galaxies observed at a distance of 13.4 billion light ... accumulating between, in the picture of time between here and now and there ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin obvious
    ... around 60 Mpc and it is observed as Hubble redshift. ... Then let's say it travels 60 Mpc, it starts to travel at less than c. ... if one has an infinite dust-free Universe, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Constancy of the Light Speed !
    ... > which is closer to you than the extinction length. ... The real universe has a few more charges than that and we can't isolate them. ... The Coulomb coupling between charges diminishes with the square of the distance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Is Einsteins "Cosmological Constant" Really a Constant? (Forwarded)
    ... Is Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" Really a Constant? ... Energy" that seems to be quickening the expansion of the universe but, ... His analysis is based on 52 distant explosions called gamma-ray bursts, ... This diagram is a graph that compares an object's distance with its ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: "Tired" light
    ... It is based on an observable universe of radius c/Ho ... > Observations show that red shift z is proportional to distance d ... an expanding universe. ... we prefer the monikers Stella and Terence. ...
    (sci.astro)