Universe Race

I wasn't able to figure this out. What was Tesla correct about?--Percy

Percy, I think you introduced a factor of 1000 somewhere in there by accident.

ALERT*** British Sarcasm ***ALERT

But relative to what?With no two points what could you be observing?If a car is traveling 30 miles an hr away from a car traveling 30 miles an hr, The expansion of the space between them is at 60 miles an hr. But we only view the expansion by the relativity of the objects in the space.I could accept this proposal if we could see the waters edge, But we have never found any end to the space to know if it is space expanding, Or space between several objects become more pronounced by the movement of the items away from each other. We can deduce a "Center" But cannot deduce whether or not that "Center" is also moving and all things moving with it, Without another point to observe (ie: True center, Validated by observation of the initial force of expansion/explosion/implosion)It is apparent That greater bodies like galaxies also are moving, But i suggest, They move on the path of the initial mass that imploded/exploded. And like a ball thrown out the window of a moving car; With no place to go accept to fall back towards the greater mass that it was spat from, Due to its velocity not exceeding the force of the gravity of the mass; Found a rotation within the greater moving body. That moves at the same speed it does, With its own variable speed within the gravitational forces that hold it captivated.The greater masses force exceeded the gravitational attraction of the initial object and became their own cluster, Also affecting the object that it spawned from.Can you at least see this is just as likely as current accepted theory?Edited by tesla, : final paragraph

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

lol yeah i caught that. I just would rather have the data that would make this model wrong. I havent found it. And no one is willing to show it. Which leads me to believe there is none, and my proposal is just as likely if not more likely if scrutinized by astrophysicists.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Corrected - thank you!And thanks for the British sarcasm alert. I have a dry sense of humor myself, but that doesn't seem to help me detect it in others. --Percy

Hubble is like a ball thrown out of a window of a moving car, it is still moving within the greater rotations. Nothing is stationary, So nothing can be deduced with any accuracy without observing its relative movement.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

If these cars are relatively close together in space, say on the same stretch of road, then space is not expanding between the two cars at 60 miles an hour. The two cars are separating from one another by traveling through space at a relative speed of 60 miles an hour.But now imagine that these two cars, each still moving at 30 mph relative to ourselves but in opposite directions, are instead a great distance away. One is a half megaparsec in one direction, the other a half megaparsec in the opposite direction. Their local velocities are still 30 mph relative to ourselves, but their velocity relative to each other is now 71 kilometers/second due to the expansion of the intervening space, and we would now measure them each as traveling at half that rate, 35.5 km/s, away from ourselves. I'm guessing that this is a reference to needing an object to pass point 1 at time 1 and point 2 at time 2 in order to calculate the velocity. We can't really do this directly using the visible motion of distant galaxies because they are too far away for their motion to be discernible, but we can do it indirectly by measuring their red shift, which gives two points separated by time on wavelengths of light. How many times must it be explained that the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) disproved this possibility nearly a half century ago. How many times do you want us to tell you "no".--Percy

This looks like nonsense. I suppose it is inevitable that you will at least occasionally stumble upon a collection and ordering of words that sort of make sense and are sort of correct. The theory of relativity says that all motion is relative, and more importantly and fundamentally, that the physical laws of the universe will always be observed to be the same in all inertial reference frames independent of their motion with respect to all other inertial reference frames. The key insight is that the speed of light will always be measured as c (300,000 kilometers/second) regardless of the relative speed of the reference frame from which the light was emitted.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Left out a word.

The distance distorts time. You are observing things what they once were, Not as they now are. To accurately determine the space between you have to calculate our movements relative to those movements within the movements of what our time was when those movements were. Again, You have to modify what your looking at relative to its time and ours. Why? BBT is theory, It should be further scrutinized by what we understand of our relation relative to what we study, And the theory of relativity still has blank spots that need worked out. Like the engine of light, So we can determine how distance and time works over greater distances with greater accuracy by our own relative position.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You have an uncanny gift to get things backwards. An explosion -- your model -- would have a front. Space doesn't have to have an edge.
The fact that we do not see an edge is evidence against your model.

We are too short sighted, And the edge too far for us to see, In my model.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You're getting your contexts confused. I was responding to your claim that two cars traveling at 30 mph in opposite directions was due to the expansion of space between them. I replied that they're merely traveling through space, and explained that you would need them to be separated by a great distance before the expansion of space would be a significant factor. The time in the reference frame of the object whose speed you are measuring can be ignored. No one said that theories related to the Big Bang shouldn't be scrutinized. It's being more thoroughly scrutinized recently than ever before in its history.What was actually said was that it makes no sense to return to theories disproven long ago, which happens to be the case for what you're proposing.--Percy

The previous theory overlooked variables. What I'm proposing is what is still being overlooked, The body that the universe is expanding IN. I still agree with universal expansion, Just not that the expansion means that bodies are "set" in particular points of space time. My proposal also has an explanation for the loss of matter as apparent of black holes. That they are points of production and reduction of matter within the greater body.I'm not throwing an old theory out here, I'm proposing a new one. And if it models a lot of older theory with new variables, It should not be treated as the old theory, But sought to be understood how it works within current understanding. And its potentials of truth based on what we do NOT know, With what we can say for certain. which isn't as much as anyone trying to scrutinize the "Origin of the universe" would like.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Your model is not new. Your proposal is for the explosion of matter and energy into existing space as opposed to the expansion of space itself. This was disproven nearly a half century ago by the discovery of the CMBR.It's also disproven by the fact that except for groups of galaxies bound gravitationally, all galaxies are in retreat from each other with velocities proportional to distance, indicating the expansion was everywhere at once and not from a single point in pre-existing space.It's also disproven by the fact that the clocks in distant galaxies do not run significantly slower than our own, as would be the case if their motion were due to travel through space instead of the expansion of space.--Percy