shmengie

If I said I agree those are two completely different explanations and can be ascertained logically by changing two different variables in GR. One not only concludes they are different in all respects except that their association to GR is different only in the variables w/which they are derived. Now I think I understand that. But it's a little more complicated than straight 1:1 difference, and it isn't. That changes everything and nothing... -- one of my reoccurring statements, not because I like it.

You are basing arguments on things I have never said. Many I have been accused of state, which I have refuted by stating I have not said them. This has been a reoccurring theme here, which is a root of my frustration, epitome of the arguments against every topic I seek to engage in a scientific fashion. I get it. The title of the thread suggests it. Wasn't the intention, the implications are understandable, from my point of view.

--- One more attempt here then I give up. I started with a simple question. I wasn't the first, doubt I'll be the last, it's a very simple question. What is the cause of redshift? 1. einstein shift 2. doppler shift Those two are accepted. Are they the same... Unknown - I can't prove it. I assert they are and that it depends on perspective, based on principles of GR Now, I'm not a scientist, so I probably shouldn't ... err... I fail... I have ascertained no debate of substance in this regard. My thesis depends on this assertion. I don't have a right to assert what I believe is correct because (here, i simply don't have the capacity).

Yes and no. I assert they are the same. It is the basis of my thesis. I've tried to make that clear. I wouldn't say it's because of relativity. But when you look at the whole of relativity in the abstract and realize how it works, by adjusting two different variables and producing the same effect, in a way it is in fact the same effect. Now I want to blame, Relativity for this strangeness, but the truth relies in nature not it's description. I'm not a physicist, so I must be wrong -- according to the logic ya'll have applied. I would say it depends on perspective. But relativity indicates its all relative and highly dependent on perspective. Hmmmmm.... I believe both hypothesis are evidenced by cosmological redshift. That's about the sum of my understanding of Lambda-CDM principle(s) in their regard. Purely scientific observation noted. I started a quest (I thought) in a purely scientific fashion. I'm not an scientist. If I apply logic presented, this is an impossibility. -- for some reason this thought hadn't occurred to me before. I'd like to point out a, there may be a flaw in this logic, but apparently there is no room in science for logic, so my argument is flawed from the onset. Perhaps, it is impossible for a non-scientist to apply scientific principles. I seem to have reached an impasse. It was very foolish of me to question any part of Lambda-CDM, because it's obviously based on entirely pure science. If there is any reason to doubt any piece of evidence therein is not and will not be a subject of debate on this board. The facts are the facts. A non-scientist simply does not possess capacity to apply scientific principles. I missed science in school. My bad. Ya'll logic is impressive. Seems there is no lack no substance whatsoever. Maybe I should bother to think... Might strain a neuron... --- Got a bit of sarcasm off my chest. I didn't want to analyze the sum of arguments proposed against my reasoning, but I've been overwhelmed but an abundance of pure BS that tippled the scales of my understanding of science. Thought I'd try to point out a flaw in a lot of arguments thus far, presented, using sarcasm. I doubt the point will be taken as intended or will help, but I had to get it off my chest. --- If science may be discussed by a person w/out a scientific background, I'd like to believe I might have some capacity in this respect. But the sum of arguments present indicate it might be futile for me to consider such course of action with other participants here. I will perhaps seek another audience for such engagement. Tho I'd rather not start all over, elsewhere. If one were to apply logic, in a logical fashion, the conclusion one must draw seems apparent. Huh, I had assumed "SCIENCE.NET" was intended otherwise. I'll learn not to " ASSuME " sooner or later.

I don't do football, tho I might be able to grasp the analogy. I've been searching for proof for and against my thesis. Its been a struggle for me because, because I started out blind. For some reason education has failed in focusing the problem, akin to giving a pair of glasses to a blind person. Maybe that's a poor analogy, but it seems to fit. Took me a very long time to figure out how my thesis really relates to GR. I started out asking a very simple question. What is the cause of shift associated cosmological redshift. Already knew the doppler analogy, but I understood there was a problem that implied Dark Energy. I didn't know what Dark Energy was, seems nobody can explain it, maybe pop-sci is wrong in that regard, but seems there's been something of a consensus about it for a while. I set out looking to resolve an issue. Not changing any interpretation of GR. I grappled with many potential causes of it many ideas I concocted were previously concocted by others and debunked, based on my google ability. Then one day I thought about gravity. I don't recall when I started learning about Einstein or Gravity shift. I think I came up with my baseline thesis before, but I can't recall... Stands to reason I learned of Einstein shift first then took that approach. In either event, I reasoned out in my minds eye, how it could be a plausible cause of redshift. Then I set out to prove or disprove it. When you reason, I don't apply a scientific approach, I find somewhat laughable... You simply don't know what I have and haven't done instead of asking why and what I've researched, you use the typical automatic response. "You don't know science and your not a scientist" then assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Pointing out I'm wrong based on assumption is not a scientific approach, if its emotionally derived or not. Its not science, its a typical human thing. I get it. I don't like it, but its one of those things that "is what it is." -- But it is cute...

I don't know if I've explained the basis of thesis I intend to present to the world. I have anxiety because of it's consequences, most of which aren't quite tangible or applicative to life on Earth. Instead the ramifications seem to only apply in theory(ies). If any of the readers present here have ability to request invitation for publication and think it justified, I'd be grateful... I hope it's warranted.

1. 2. 3. almost there. I've got an uphill battle to wadge now. It's not evidently clear that shift in light be it doppler or gravity are essentially the same effect in relativity they boil down to one principle. Change in energy space-mass. That's seems a foreign way to state it, but the for the sake of progress and simplicity it needs to be stated as such. It may be an unintended consequence of GR. But I don't think that matters if its a side effect of GR or more likely of the way reality works, it all boils done to the concept of relativity and how complex, simplicity really is. lolololool It's tough to conceive one thing professor Einstein and a century's worth of work in Lambda-CDM totally missed it, so maybe I did make a discovery after all... I don't think I'm qualified to make such a statement. Seems evident to me that's the general consensus around here. nananana I'm and oxymoron and you're not.... Seems like every thing I say is rubber and I'm glue..... DOH don't know where I'm going with that. Well, I don't know about you but I feel better now. This one really simple solution Einstein devised, only points out GOD has a sadistic sense of humor. Tho, that implies belief in another area, I have issues with a lot of assertions and no viable evidence other that that which remains self evident. When I first conceived this thesis, I grappled with the right and wrong of it. The fact that it was so simple suggested that someone else already should have conceived it by now. I searched for a similar thesis and found a couple that looked promising, but none actually contained it. Went back to grappling write and wrong... concluded it was right and posted what I thought... Got a lot of bloback from you guys, but not a definitive wrong. You used basically same arguments then, w/out as many specific details, but they all remained the same... I'm not a physicist, I know that but thanks for pointing that out too... But I got an idea ppl missed for a long time. It's not real complex if you get what relativity does, but the concepts that mingle are tough to grasp. I get that. Don't necessarily have to be physicist to do that. I expect you get that too, from a slightly albeit different perspective. Teaching physics to a physicist when your not one is tough, too.... I suppose you might get that too. Tho perspectives differ, it still boils down to one basic concept. It's a fook'n relative bitch. -- no offense intended toward female dogs. In a poor attempt to lighten emotions I've liberally used my lousy sense of humor. I've laughed well on occasion, I can only hope you have too. I like simple. Works for me. I don't know who coined this phrase: "Once a thing is know, it simply cannot be unknown" Figuratively, I dance a jig, when I grapple the consequences of that statement and how it applies to my predicament. There is an overwhelming bit of irony in that a lack in application of math has been used to debunk a thesis utilized the ignorance implied to conceive and apply the principle the discovery set forth. I recognize it as an oxymoron of sorts and have liberally applied the term to myself accordingly. If ya'll don't get the humor in that, its okay, I'll likely incorporate it in my thesis anyway. My ass has always been too smart for my own good. But! If one can't take advantage of ones shortcomings, one must understand others likely will. I'm not getting enough sleep. I'm too excited. Hope I get published and can move on... I'm hoping. Been stuck long enough, I would like to move on. Its funny, I don't want to be proven wrong. I've been searching for such proof for a while now... I've grappled with proving it right and have hit many dead ends, frustration has caused me to give up from time to time. Lack of understanding can often be easily resolved by learning. But when the "accepted" principles don't understand a problem, learning simply cannot be forced. Understanding my issues has been a personal problem, I hope to resolve. My thesis has been confronted with that issue with help from this community, I've tried to stress gratitude. I've been searching for a flaw in my logic for a while. Unfortunately I've discovered something that changes everything and nothing at the same time. That's left me in a state of solitude. I don't like it, but ... is what it is... I think I do have a discovery, tho I find it hard to claim it my own. It relies on many other peoples work... its humbling... But I want it known before I die, and I'd kinda like credit. Maybe I am humble... Certainly one can't be qualified to make ones own assessment, in that regard. I have conceived a new method of viewing relativity... I haven't drawn it yet, its still stuck in my head. It's not really a new perspective but another simplification of methods I've seen employed on pop-sci and other sources. But that's a whole other ball of wax... I don't know if its right or wrong. I'll probably incorporate it in my thesis, because it's helped me conceptualize the problems at hand. If I'm right it will help simplify problems with black holes... I'm keeping my neurons crossed. If you can provide any method of falsifying my thesis, I would appreciate it. Tho I've been working toward that ends, I don't want it to be the ultimate ending. I do have a personal attachment to it.

Well, I had hoped you would at least answer the one question I would like affirmed. I understand its a difficult question to grasp. You have already provided mathematical support I need, ironically you chose it, in effort to prove a flaw in my assertion (I will thank you again for that, consider it a heart felt THANK YOU). The question has been answered. It is somewhat ironic the answer was designed to support Lambda-CDM and with GR quandary I use (or perhaps, exploit). I trust the math was applied correctly and the authors many not have realized a consequence of their proof. I don't fault them for that, after all its been hidden in plain sight for nearly a century now, simply by posing the wrong question. BTW: I never would have attempted your solution. I'd have problems mixing the term vacuum with the concept of applying an external outward pressure. But that's probably just me, trying to apply logic to a science I cannot understand. I lost a lot of sleep over that, as you may recall a blathering excited span of my words in this very thread of discussion. I didn't arrive at this conclusion all at once. I chose to seek an answer for Dark Energy ~5~ years ago. 2 years ago I thought I found it. 1 year ago I posted on this board, my first rendition. It made sense to me but I lacked proof and a more comprehensive understanding. There are many assertions for which I simply cannot answer. I'd like to say its not just me, but quite frankly, when one contemplates the universe one finds numerous assertions that lack a complete explanation. That is not my fault in the slightest (I blame god, but lets not bring theology into this). Lets be clear: There are many questions we can pose that must rely on insubstantial assertion. Its not a choice, its an unavoidable fact of ignorance. A brief, yet pertinent list of example: I don't know SS theory well, but believe its list is short opposed to that of BB, so I'll start there. SS consists of a few obvious assertions: What is space? it was, is and will be Examine a short list of BB's assertions. it never was Something banged suddenly, it suddenly was Blew up to infinity (maybe?, looks like it's still growing... obviously hasn't reached infinity) Absurd? I don't know. It clearly explains where to begin, end and where we are, w/out insubstantial assertion? No. There are many more "assUmed" assertions which remain totally unsubstantiated. I believe the list continues in a detailed fashion. At least SS doesn't overly complicate the list by assuming more and more unsubstantiated assertions are science or dare I say "scientific". Light shift is evidence that a bang happened. -unsubstantiated, but logical conclusion. Ironically it's also used as evidence the bang is not constant or that it has inconsistent qualities. Dark Energy exists and is even tho it has no identifiable cause. The fact that it makes up about 68% of all everything, I find highly incomprehensible. BEST unsubstantiatable assertion of Dark Energy: SPACE IS A PROPERTY OF A PHOTON It's not stated as such anywhere that I'm aware . But if space is expanding and affects a photon, it therefor must be a property of said photon. Science a large body of proof that doesn't depend on unsubstantiated assertions? Perhaps Lambda-CDM is science, tho a flexible definition of science must be applied. The one I call "best" is an implicit implication of assumption. Easy to see a cause for confusion with GR, IMO. GR relates to space-time as if they are one in the same. Einstein used the term space-time to avoid confusion of using a term such as distance-time. Its hard to communicate with such a concept, unless a statement like "the distance between distance-time and distance-time coordinates" sounds more natural to you. Space / distance terminology requires a distinction but does not imply space is a property to use in other fashions. Its a very simple straight forward and natural mistake, IMO. But no matter how you stack it, its a mistake, repeated over and over again. It's common practice. Few if any ppl notice. I seem to be in the minority, don't ask me why, I'm not a scientist. I'm pretty sure none of that makes sense to my learned colleagues, because I'm simply not an educated physicist who could possibly possess a capacity to comprehend complicated concepts. Maybe I misunderstood something, oh yeah, somebody said this is science, my bad, perhaps I should apologize. I see it as a consequence of ignorance and blame god, allah and/or budda for an abundant lack of documentation. (It might be wrong to blame budda, but I don't think he'd mind either way.) Maybe we should protest and employ a new reality. Where's my pipe, I want to stick said photon in it and smoke it. Who knows, maybe it's space-time properties will have a positive effect on me.

By lack of further responses, I can only guess ya'll are producing the sound " hmmmm... " DOH, I typed too soon. Strange did respond. NONONO. I'm going to do a nono, answer a question with a question. What is the cause of the force termed "dark energy?" But that's okay. If you cannot see the point I'm making, that's okay at the moment, it's not self evidently clear. e=mc2 That's simple. It's implications are clear. Relativity on the other hand is a whole different ball of wax. Frankly, I sincerely doubt I could explain any of the concepts of relativity in great detail and make them all crystal clear with such a simple equation. I'm no Einstein. However, because I'm not a physicist who know's he understands the all the concepts involved, I've been afforded a luxurious point of view of asking questions that don't make sense. Which given relativity, none of it makes outright sense, in my opinion. How professor Einstein ever came up with it? That confounds me, but I'm in good company, in that regard. But there's one feature of relativity. It ties many different perspectives of reality together and makes one aspect of reality appear to have two different causes, even tho they're the same thing, evidently it depends on prospective. Its very hard to catch, because they are used in totally different interpretations of the same thing. Everyone keeps asking: Why does the universe look like it's expanding? WRONG. I think they should be asking a different question. Try this one out for GR sizing: Why does it look like it's stretching? Hint, its the same question. But now, my answer makes has a hint of sense to it. When you view it from the perspective of the GR lens, what I've been yelping about works just right. Its pure and its simple. Just because the universe looks a certain way, doesn't mean that's the way it is. Once you understand GR, you can come to terms with what it all, like it or not, doesn't matter. However, if the universe isn't expanding, then what's going on... I think I understand. I'm working on spelling it out. I could be wrong. But I suspect I'm right. It's all really quite simple, or so it seems. But the implications are huge. Einstein himself didn't make the connection, even tho he spelled it out clearly with GR. I didn't invent anything new, other than claiming gravity is the cause for appears as Dark Energy. Others have done the math, I only supplied the logical conclusion. For some reason I like to compare myself to Einstein... But that's not fair, I have advantages over him. Cosmological observations were few in his lifetime. There's more now than one might wish to fully comprehend. He could only hypothesize black holes. I started out believing in them (so to speak). I know I'm no Einstein, he couldn't escape the fact. I suppose I should ask (now???) if an assumption of mine is correct. I believe it is, but the idea could be *wrong* . Is the shift in light, either gravity or doppler really the same phenomena, merely termed different according to perspective? I believe it is, which is paramount to my thesis. I suppose there's nothing wrong with verifying one little itty bitty fact, before publishing it.

I intend to very soon. I've been struggling with this concept for a long time. None of it is my own work, its revolved around my understanding others work. I have an explanation for the source of the energy termed "Dark Energy" I believe its gravity. We've missed comprehending one consequence of GR and it's caused some confusion. This affects understanding of one tenant of Lambda-CDM model and one misunderstood pillar, considered evidence for expansion. Its all terribly confusing, IMO, but I've eluded to it and I could be wrong, but I'm not. I apologize for being cryptic, if it's seemed as such, but this is no simple problem I'm trying to contend with. You all have been a great help progressing my thesis. I intend to avail it to you at the earliest possible convenience. For now, THANK YOU ALL. You have been a tremendous help. The last time I rendered my idea I was still missing a piece of the puzzle this thread helped resolve. I'm working on a clear(er) rewrite, I intend to have published. I wanted to publish that, but there are a lot of missing pieces, I didn't realize they were missing when I composed those words. There was a earlier rendition on this board. I've only started a few threads. The first thread I started (here) contained the first rendition (about a year ago). The definition of Dark Energy has been slightly modified (in my mind's eye). The next rendition will spell it out more definitively. In the interim, you're welcome to read/review its previous rendition, if you like, respond here/there, up to you (FWIW my name is Joe Brown): http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66046.0

I've never published a paper. I have an AA in Data Processing, from a community college. When I studied, IP wasn't coined as a generally understood acronym at the time, tho the concept existed the GNU GPL was of more interest to me than most other copyrights. I've searched for an invention of my own for a long time. The idea I'm struggeling with isn't an invention of my own, per se. I've only logically reasoned it out. There's an invention of a sort, but not really. It's more akin debuging human knowledge. I've tried to explain it in that fashion, but it's hard. Its a very basic concept of relativity but because it requires a strong understanding of relativity, its quite complicated. If you read all threads I've started, understood relativity better than me, you'd be able to piece it all together and might be able to publish before me, tho I'm working on changing that possibility.

I don't claim to "know" mathematical theory. Tho I do, to an extent. One cannot write a mathematical equation without. I've written many in several different computer languages. One common aspect of them all is their mathematical representation. In order to associate a concept, with a greek symbol, one must ascertain the concept and then associate it with the symbol. Doesn't quite work the other way around, as best I can fathom... Just because I don't know all the symbols and their matching concepts, doesn't mean I cannot grasp them, does it? I suppose an argument could be made, but it lacks some substance. Ahh.. hmm.. tough argument. I suppose it would be the "right" to publish. One scientific principle that's considered a practice... We all get to practice till we get it right.

Like the good professor said, it's all relative. I'm in the process of formulating the explanation now and writing it. Reluctant to post the finished product here, until it's been published else where and there's no IP rights involved. Its beautifully simple, so it has to be right, IMO. But the concepts involved are difficult. It all boils down to understanding GR and 1 assertion that must be addressed in the proper fashion. Because it does change everything and nothing at the same time. I will make one assertion I believe correct and I've not fully investigated. But that's a gamble I'm taking for the fun of it. But I'll reference one paper Morded (I think) supplied (to me), as evidence. It supplies all the math for support and I don't have to type one greek letter or mathematical symbol (other than reference nubmers).

I can't. That's been something of a problem. I've somewhat eluded to this. Quite a big quandary, I don't know how to resolve. Started writing another rendition of my thesis. I will attempt to publish it as soon as possible, so we can all enjoy a good laugh. Have chosen to avoid the topic of CDM and CMBR. I don't believe the topic of thesis is pertinent to those. For a short while, I thought I had to invalidate BB... All evidence has been applied to Lambda-CDM and it makes sense. There is a flaw in the logic of one principle of Lambda-CDM which is termed its pillar of evidence. Its only one flaw and my thesis relies upon it and what seems to the primary assertion of Lambda-CDM. These two combined together have produced Dark Energy and "our" lack of understanding it. I like to believe I have got it figured out. But I have to explain it to all the other children. It really does have the effect of changing everything and nothing, which is so much like an oxymoron, I feel like I'm defining myself as such. I hope I can paint the picture crystal clear and we can move on from there. I could be wrong... I know... I could be right... In the end, because it changes a whole lot of nothing, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way. The whole thesis relies on one assertion I cannot prove. But that's quite literally, nothing new. The assertion is the same the same and different for BB and SS. That's been the conundrum all along, but I'm working on it. I'd love to claim it's resolved, but na, that's too hard for me, I know I'm not that smart. I don't have an answer for anything new. I've charged myself with changing a perception that is based on flawed reasoning. I've identified the flaw, believe I know it's origin and why it exists and persists. It seems to me, others must agree, before I can move on. It's a hurdle, I've been struggling with for a while. I'd like to move on... The question posed as the topic for this thread is not a simple one thing or one principle is right the others are wrong topic... Its complicated, but I've finally narrowed it down, I think the best I can... Soon, I hope. GR is not a simple concept, IMO. It implies many things are relatively simple, but makes it relatively difficult to get everything right.

Waaaaa, it was so easy to toss CDM to the side and ignore it. I've got one supposition that's really bugging me. I'm going to change your view of the universe to be about the same as it ever was. There's one difference. Seems I don't have to toss Lambda-CDM to the side, altogether but I need a reasoning for a state to be a state. I might have to forgo conceiving a reason, i surely don't get it, at present. I have noticed all the maths. I've even tried to translate the symbols to personal understandings. I have a bit of a hard time with that, doubt I'm in the minority in that respect. Understanding principles requires conceptualization, maths solidify the contextualization by terming them in a language others may communicate in and providing a finite definition of the rules governing concepts. I have a rudimentary understanding of all of the above. For the most part I get it. I discovered a flaw in Lambda-CDM -- not me really -- determined an explanation for that which is decidedly unexplained. Dark Energy -- I don't dispel it instead I define it. But there's a flaw in Lambda-CDM that we're going to have to come to terms with to deal with it. Since I cannot explain the why things are, only that they must have been and remain a certain way. The assertion will have to stand on it's own merit. I think it will, but that's probably going to be the toughest league of the journey. I am going to change your perception of the universe. It has me very excited. It'll receive a lot of flack, but it will achieve "acceptance". And just to really tick some off I won't use any math symbols, merely words and pictures. But once you get it, you might say "oh, now I get it." It requires a alternative view of Lambda-CDM and Steady State. Or more precisely a combination of the two, which indicates an alternative all together, to me. There is still a piece of the puzzle I haven't quite figured out -- or come to terms with. Don't know if its going to hold things up or not. In the end everything stays basically the same. Only thing that changes is "our" understanding is a little more complete. Unfortunately it does pose more questions, but that's progress for ya. I've enjoyed posing them alone, but I want company Seems Dark Energy has been a conundrum thats sorta going away, by dispelling the mystery behind it. Its still there but once you understand it's cause, it no longer is termed a 'mystery'.

I've not studied the body of thermodynamics in great detail. The gist of my thesis doesn't depend on thermodynamics. However, CMBR and my lack of therms, I've decide is unimportant to resolve before moving forward with changing everything because in essence I change nothing. There many questions that will have to be reformulated. I've been told I must explain CMBR to propose an alternate to BB. I understand that reasoning, but it is flawed IMO. Others will figure that out, whether I do or not. Well.. physics uses math to support principles doesn't mean that the whole body of physics means maths. When I first realized the issue I was tackling, I didn't know a lot about physics (honestly I still dont) but... I'd agree "physics means principles" It would be more accurate to state "physics implies maths" or "physics applies maths" to understand principles. Einstein said once, to describe principle you need to be able to describe them to a child. (not a direct quote). I've been trying to describe a change in a principle. I discovered a method to describe GR to a child (namely me), uses a similar method as one thats' already been used, by dropping 5 dimensions to 3, instead of 4. Because my philosophy depends on GR this was necessary. Now I can describe the problem in that fashion and why it is they way it is. That was the breakthru I needed to move it forward. Now I gotta write down my description and it can be shared.

I term it a plausible hypothesis, because much of it is defined on accepted principles. I question it's validity because I cannot clearly define a clear divine of the supposition from which it is based, from the scientific evidence. On several occasions I've been told I don't understand the principles of science. In many instances because I doubt the plausibility of Lambda-CDM. I don't know how much of Lambda-CDM is based on pure supposition. 0% would be ideal, IMO. That would leave little room for doubt. While I don't know Lambda-CDM from head to toe, but like to believe I have a reasonable familiarity with it. I know there is supposition involved. I don't know the full extent. But one key body of evidence for it is based on a degree of supposition. CMBR analysis is based on a lot of scientific principles I don't fully grasp. Its inclusion in expansion principle is, however, to a degree based on supposition(s). I don't know how you view that, but it induces a bit of skepticism in me. I don't understand a lot of Lambda principles, I understand it's basis on supposition and count thereof does not equal to 0 or 1. Now maybe I don't understand how "science" works. But... I could be wrong. The thesis I've been working on for a day or two now, I recognize conflicts with expansion. Probably because I don't understand science. I would beg to differ. But. There are a lot I of things I simply don't know... (Ar my fn bah. (sorry getting a little emotional)). I've known all along it conflicts, but one must draw the arbitrary line once in a while. I've set out a few goals with this thesis. One, you guys induced, math, but I *might* have to forgo not learning more. I think I figured out exactly 1 change in math. In order for my thesis to be accepted a portion of Lambda-CDM must be invalidated. It happens to be the largest portion which relies heavily on supposition. It stems from the wrong question being asked a long time ago. I said it changes everything and almost nothing. Everything that's based on (too much) supposition, will have to be toss and replaced with new suppositions. I didn't choose this as a consequence. I don't like it. There are so many things I cant answer because of it, it's going to make winning my argument difficult. I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, I'm a lousy hack(er). I specialize in logic, with mad debugging skills. I took offense when my logic was called into question, tried not to bitch too much about it. Wanted to bitch more than I have... (can we call it a wash LOL). Did I find something new... Maybe... I view it as a bug and I'm gonna debug it best I can. Where it's placed, reminds me of malware. In either event, a reboot will be required.

've been working on a new postulation. Nothing new, to some, many of you may have done the same. If/when you postulate a beginning of the universe, it helps if you can understand other work. I have issues with Lambda-CDM because I believe its something of a contradiction in terms. Its believed to be science, but the line between supposition and evidence, when one refers to Lambda-CDM principles is not simply not clear. If you could draw a line through this collection of science, err... evidence and supposition is it possible to do it in a clearly defined fashion? I've picked a spot. I'd like to hear comments before revealing my choice, should you be so inclined.

I said (from old Quote) I find Lambda-CDM somewhat plausible, doesn't mean its wrong or right. What is this large body of evidence??? I've been asking for evidence. Iterated a list of three items, pointed out it was short and logically invalidated one third. I also produced a thought experiment that didn't garner any evidence for/against, other than "thats the way it is" which isn't evidence, IMO. Here's another thought experiment. I hope you guys find this stuff engaging. I do, even tho I claim no grasp of math, I like thought experiments. CBMR... really limits the age of the Universe, based on expansion. There's an age or quite a few, the universe cannot be, if expansion is right. It's postulated there is a distance of the universe that exists but we never be able to see because it's distance is further than light will ever travel because expansion is faster than light it's essentially moving away from us. Now there's a lot I don't like about that, but those are the facts as I understand them, according to Lambda-CDM. Now one might assume we wouldn't be able to detect CMBR because it's originating from such a point. But the logic indicates that's wrong, because the universe isn't that old (I think, not quite sure about this). Based on this state of reality, we can detect CMBR because it's originated inside the horizon of light speed expansion inversion. How long until that state of affairs changes and we won't be able to detect it? What is the predicted drop off of detect-ability expected to be like? Is there such hypothesis? Would really shut me up if it happens tomorrow. ;D I laughed hard when I slipped the explicative in there and you didn't quote it. Crack my laugh pot, y don't u. --- Okay, let's suppose the cosmological constant is 0. Does that instantly turn GR into support for steady state, steady space-time or steady distance/space. Back to the "i could be wrong" supposition I think it's kinda like saying there isn't a constant. And the redshift doesn't make sense in this circumstance, therefor its wrong... Ahh... I get it. shhh it happens. tho ... I dont want to say it.... I fear I'm cracking on wrong. FWIW: I'm not trying to be sarcastic, rude or anything of the nature. I've never had a course on relativity. I've never read a book about it. I did read a biography on Einstein once, but it was such a snooze to read, I can't believe I ever finished it. Can't remember who the author was, but would a been better if it was Einstein. The book I chose, if you read it, you know what I'm talking about when I say it stunk. Never had a course on calculus or trig, but the concepts have been introduced a very long time ago. You don't need to know them to write code. Tho you do need to grasp the concepts to code around them, coding inherently implies calculus, ie. the function. 48 when I finally understood that concept association. DOH I'm 49. I've been trying to grasp relativity for a long time. I *think* I understand the maths, but the transformations baffle me as equally as everything about tensors. I believe the answer to the posed question is distance/space. But I humbly request affirmation. My thesis has nearly solidified and I might possibly be presenting it to you this month. I'm not going to go the secretive/greedy route. But I think I've figured it out completely tonight. 1. bb must be wrong 2. relativity must be right Understanding is simple, once you realize you went along with asking the wrong question... I need to work on details of that. I do have a question which revolves around expansion. Strange question: Data that supports the current and roughly 14 billion years worth of cosmological constant evolution. I'm going to propose tossing any value for cosmological constant for which we cannot substantiate, through evidence. Technically its not invalidating the gamut of bb/expansion, but it does imply that any data that is supported by supposition is either absent or wrong. It's a way to say bb is technically wrong, which doesn't invalidate any of existing observational evidence. Can I do that? LOL... -meant to pose a question, but I realized I was making a lot of statements then made up the question. Theres a lot of implications with bb and my principle, but it really changes no observational data, but the supposition behind bb must be wrong for my postulation to be right. My thesis depends on this. BB must be wrong, IMO.... Has to do with the initial question asked. I told you it was simple... *I*STILL*BELIEVE*IM*RIGHT*. tho I'll be wrong again, soon enough... it happens. I've been contemplating the universe for decades. Its not like I woke up one day and decided to play a prank on you guys or anybody. That was never a goal. I told you I'm searching for the truth. Don't know any loftier goal than that. There's not one flaw with Lambda-CDM that bothers me. There's a few of 'em. I can't explain CMBR. I have little interest in thermal dynamics, so I'm not real interested in that aspect. While I understand Lambda-CDM has a lot of association with it, I don't believe an alternate beginning must explain it to gain traction. I've not started to try and I don't see the point. Others will figure something out that makes sense, right or wrong won't much matter to me. My thesis in its present state cannot support it, but it doesn't have to... Lambda-CDM fits with the theories of CMBR, doesn't mean another theory can't as well. I can guess at scenarios that might explain it, but that's a pointless exercise for me, because its not science. You guys are much better equipped for than I, so I'll leave it to you or whomever might choose to do so. I'd like to claim I was the one that spotted a flaw in Lambda-CDM. But it wasn't me, the flaws I know aren't of my own discovery, pop-sci sources and frankly common knowledge. Dark Energy is the biggest of the bunch or more specifically the cosmological -non-static- constant. I think I've figured out a plausible explanation for this. Unfortunately my "plausible" explanation requires a bout as much unsubstantiatable supposition lambda-cdm does to formulate matter. I don't have an explanation for matter. I'd like to say it doesn't matter, but matter matters... Well... oh well... I'm pretty sure I'll get you to believe what needs to change and the missing pieces of the puzzle will find a new way to fit in or they won't. I can't answer a lot of questions. Never claimed to be able to answer 'em all. By engaging me and making me think, you've given me a debt to you, I hope pays off in spades for the sake of progress.

Argh, I misstated the facts slightly. I apolgize. I asked for evidence of expansion. GR wasn't provided as evidence. If Lambda-CDM is based on GR it doesn't require invalidating GR to doubt, question or otherwise falsify expansion. Conversely invalidating GR would invalidate expansion. I might be wrong, shh it happens.

Which means you reject GR. Ahh, ok, I get your logic and further understand my problem. You cannot comprehend a Universe which is neither expanding nor contracting, because relativity says it must. I assert that assertion is flawed. GR does not predict an expanding or contracting Universe, however. Einstein saw that as a problem with GR at one point and resolved it with what he later claimed a BIG mistake. Now the scientific community seems to agree he was wrong about being wrong. I'm saying three wrongs don't make a right, but my math, as you know, is pretty shaky. I would state that GR doesn't prove BB and conversely it doesn't disprove it (yet) either. I don't think a constant is needed to prove otherwise, but inclined to disagree with one self. We both agree I don't know, my point, one I struggle with not knowing, is that it still needs to be defined. I see this problem a little differently because, I believe I'm NOT the only who doesn't know it. I have a postulation, but I haven't a scrap of proof. The hunt is narrowing. This may help. Right or wrong, isn't the question I'm posing. I'm still hunting for the piece of the puzzle I'm missing, as I have eluded that was the initial intent of the thread. I thought you agreed with me, when I stated GR wasn't proof of Lambda-CDM. The initial question posed asks for proof of expansion and nobody's stated it was, that doesn't mean my belief is right or wrong, but it does suggest a flaw in your assertion.

The gist of that thought experiment is effort to avoid reference to Lambda-CDM. Neglected to include it's proposal, a mix of proton, neutron and electron has purpose. A definitively extreme segregation seems equally plausible (to me). Neutrons are specifically puzzling, to me, for if the beginning was akin to steady state and neutrons were a first state of sort, steady state would potentially have even more problems at the starting line. Doesn't have to be steady state tho, but BB rules it out by saying it had to be different. Logic suggests we must be sure and asks, how? How can we be sure? On the other hand if steady state is a plausible beginning of sorts, could it have started on the other extreme and form neutrons later... These are seem like simple questions I don't see a clear answer to with lambda, other than saying it was different because it was. Perhaps I don't understand but I would like definitive definition for one way vs. others. I agree, whole heartedly. Tried to make that clear. re: relativity I don't recall saying that. I suppose you construe my doubt about Lambda-CDM as evidence I do. But my belief as stated, I perceive means otherwise. A positive answer would likely be posed in questions, not answers. There's logic in there, but... I'm cracked.

I strayed off topic, but it was my intention from the onset, due to a personal agenda. I would like an itemized list and thus far failed to compile one outside my head. 1. cosmological redshift 2. CMBR 3. Failure of steady state That's a short list. Wish I would have compiled it before the thread move. I don't think relativity is evidence for/against. Believe its one of the best descriptions of what is. if one believes steady state requires nothing to changes, it fails before with any description of change. The universe is/was/may always evolve. That requires change. I think a new definition for what if anything remains/retains the quality of steady, before steady state can be defined appropriately. Seems everything evolves. If steady state cant cope with that, it's flawed beyond repair and it's failure shouldn't be considered evidence. IhMO. I have conceived a flaw in BB/Lambda-CDM. I have reasoned out a clear definition of cosmological redshift. I will present this in a clear and concise format soon. I thank all who have participated in this thread, for your help in achieving the goal I set out. I apologize for deception from the onset, but I couldn't ask "What do I not know about accepted principles?" and expect a viable answer.

Okay, lets start with a couple of really basic questions about mass. I've contemplated a few and haven't hunted down answers for them, because I like my prospective uncluttered with definitive solutions I don't believe presently exist. I classify that statement as purely hypothetical, because I know I possess an abundance of ignorance. Lets suppose something banged that inevitably resulted in mass. Who/what/where, unknown, when... about the start of time. Was there a point where all mass was pure neutrons or pure separated proton and electron mix. I haven't researched it. I question plausibility of a definitive answer. To say it's BB or SS, I suspicion there is pertinence. But can't comprehend implications.

I've already eluded to some concepts I've been working on and many issues I see with expansion and steady state. There's issues we all know exist with both, we DO NOT know how to resolve. I will propose an alternative. But I'm going to limit the scope of it, because there are so many things *I*know* cannot answer. Instead of answering them I'll cheat, by leaving it to the reader. After all, doesn't matter if you choose steady state or expansion. The cause nor amount of matter that formed has many but not a definitive answer. There was a bang. But it was silent. So instead of calling BB, BB, we call it Lambda-CDM. There was a state. But it wasn't steady. So what do we call it???