Summations Only

Let's see how this evidence holds up . . . None of those apply to the type of expansion we are talking about. The expansion of our universe is the expansion of the space itself. In your examples, we have the movement of matter within space. Those are two very different things. That has nothing to do with the expansion of our universe. The expansion of our universe is not driven by areas of different pressure within a planetary atmosphere. This has nothing to do with the expansion of our universe. Then we would expect to see a blueshift. We don't. We see the exact opposite which is a redshift. Also, we see time dilation in heavily redshifted type Ia supernovae, exactly what we would expect to see if they were moving away from us at high speed. We also see that redshift is consistent no matter where we look which is not what we would expect if we were in a vortex.

That must be how the slow-moving serial killer manages to catch the fleeing teenager in horror films...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Okay, Catholic Scientist- With air going into a vacuum-cleaner, the air loses pressure as it approaches the nozzle and that's the same thing as expansion. Where is the contraction?Our Universe is a vortex, like the Milky Way - but if it passes thru' a particularly dense part of space, it could grow. That's why I don't like to say it's contracting.

First off - Taq you have to understand the Universe isn't expanding. Nobody can see the Universe. What we can see is the Observable Universe.Anybody who claims he can see the Universe is just pretending. One of the things we know about the Observable Universe is that the 'accelerating expansion.' and any 'accelertating expansion' is inward. This I explain in my "Observati0onal Evidence" at the beginning of this thread.As for the Central-Vac and the snowball, I'm just trying to show that any 'Accelerating Expansion' is inward. I explain this accelerating expansion on the same page.Sure, it has not much to do with the movement of the Observable Universe. As for your description of 'expansion,' as far as I'm concerned - I think matter is moving away from other matter, tho' you may disagree.Blue shifting does not apply. Air moving towards a Central Vac (CV) will lose pressure (I'm sure you can see that) and that's expansion (Red shift). The air entering the nozzle of the CV is in its
most expanded state and also at its highest speed.I hope that answers your doubts.

Panda.
I'm sure you know that as the air approaches the nozzle it's in its most expanded state. Are you going to tell me that's not Inward?AS for your serial killer I'm not interested.

I'm sorry I don't understand your question, Dr Adequate.

Hi Peter,Will you at some point be explaining how the expansion turned from outward to inward between 5 and 10 billion years ago when the expansion of the universe stopped decelerating and began accelerating?--Percy

One way or the other, Einstein was completely wrong about the cosmological constant. We know this because he confidently asserted two completely different opinions about it. So it would be a bit strange to do as you have done, and quote him as the definitive authority on the cosmological constant, when we know that he is famous for being wrong about this subject. First he thought it was non-zero, then observational evidence compelled him to think it was zero, and now after he's dead more observational evidence has come along that would convince him that it was non-zero if he was alive, and then you want to rebut the actual evidence by saying: "Einstein himself thought ...", when the one thing we know for certain about Einstein's opinions on this subject is that half the time he must have been completely wrong about it.

Percy, you are obviously an intelligent person. Nobody can see the Universe - only the Observable Universe.As for your 'slowing down' of the expansion - this is entirely without evidence. There is much wrong with your Big-Bang - you have an accelerating expansion that is Outward. Such a thing does not existThe Universe is trillions of years old. The expansion started only slowly and has since accelerated. All Outward Expansions slow do-wn.
Only Inward Expansions speed up. I explain this in my "Observational Evidence" earlier in this thread. There was no Big-Bang, there is no Dark Energy. Both fabrications.

The observational evidence that all the observable universe was in roughly the same place at the same time around 13.8 billion years ago is unequivocal.You do realize you're a loon, don't you.--Percy

Percy, the expansion has always been Inward. Our Universe evolved - there was no Big Bang.The acceleration started slowly, trillions of years ago, and has since accelerated. We're not going out, Percy. We're going in.I explain this in my Observational Evidence, at the beginning of this thread.

Percy, I may be a loon, either that or very intelligent.I repeat, there was no Big Bang. Such a thing is unthinkable. The Universe evolved slowly, trillions of years ago. The expansion started slowly and has since accelerated.Everything was in the same place,3.8 billionyears ago? Why did everything go to the same place? I'm very sceptical about your Big Bang.People used to believe Man was made, 'poof ' just like in the Bible but Darwin came along and taught us Man evolved only slowly. People still believe the Universe was made 'poof' just like in the Bible (the Church loves it) but I say the Universe evolved only slowly.

No, definitely a loon. An intelligent person would base their claims upon evidence. You not only have no evidence, you don't even know what evidence is.--Percy

Yes, I know. As Admin I explained to you that it wasn't evidence. You kept claiming it was too evidence and AdminPhat finally dumped your thread here in Free For All, land of the loons. This includes the supposedly sane among us who for who knows what perverse reasons decide to engage with you guys. Hopefully I'll recover soon.--Percy

I did not claim anything regarding regarding this: I did not say that air doesn't travel in to the nozzle.Here is what I wrote: So, back to what you wanted: your 'Observational Evidence'... No - there are many kinds of expansion (see above).Edited by Panda, : No reason given.