ACG52

Relativity, which has been experimentally and observationally verified to an amazing degree over the last hundred years tells us that there is no absolute frame of reference. The rate of expansion is about 78 km/sec/megaparsec. This means that the rate of expansion increases by 78 km/sec for every 3.26 million light years. This is a very low expansion rate. Yes, there's quite a bit we don't yet know. The surprising thing is how much we've been able to learn about the universe in just the last 200 years.

It is also worthy of note that Marmet's paper is 13 years old, and there's been no subsequent validation.

Paul Marmet's main area of expertise is atomic physics. His proposed explanation for the redshift/distance relation is based on interactions of photons with the inter-galactic medium. Such interactions should result in some angular dispersion, with a consequent blurring of distant objects. No such blurring is observed and most scientists consider that a falsification of the model.

And galaxies that are gravitationally bound together remain bound together in spite of the space added. You don't have a clue, and consistently misstate everything, due to a total ignorance of gravity, expansion, red-shift, and just about everything else you post on. You simply don't understand anything that you read or hear, or simply reject it outright in favor of your own fantasies.

Prophet12's ignorance of gravitational theory, cosmological expansion and the big bang is profound and profoundly disturbing.

I didn't say anything about your looks, just your picture. Am I supposed to believe you exist? So we've got Einstein's original manuscripts, his letters, his biographies, his theorems, recordings of him, pictures of him and his brain. All we've got of you are 7 posts that could have easily been written by a bot and a bad picture. There's far more evidence of Einstein's existence than there is of yours. So do we believe you exist?

Actually his brain is in the National Museum of Health and Medicine. His is a better picture than yours.

Well there's no evidence of an Ark, or of a flood, or of the existence of Noah. But there are plenty of pictures of Einstein.

Entropy is based in classical physics, specifically thermodynamics.

How about 'false' and 'schmaltz'? (ok, so it's Yiddish for rendered chicken fat. It rhymes)

This is simply assertion and denial. You provide no evidence, no argument, no observation and no theory. I see no point in dealing with you any longer. You are not amenable to reason or science.

Essentially yes. That is what is actually observed. That galaxies closer to each other than 200 million lys will not show recession from each other due to expansion. Galaxies further apart than that do show recession from each other. There are no observation of any kind showing contraction. This is purely a fantasy of yours. You simply have no idea of the effect of gravity and the attenuation of gravity by distance. And this simply makes no sense at all. Again, you show no comprehension regarding the action of gravity.

Incorrect. This simply shows once again that you don't know what you're talking about. Hubble detected red shift in DISTANT galaxies, well outside the local galactic supergroup. Learn some history. Of course, you know better than the Nobel Prize committee. Accelerated expansion has been observed, not conjectured. Hence the introduction of Dark Energy, which is just a version of Einstein's cosmological constant. Yet the measurements and observations have been made and verified. Your refusal to accept anything which doesn't support your nonsense is what clearly establishes you as a crank.

Your scribble doesn't fly at all.

That's because photons don't interact with other photons.

That's meaningless. If you want a flying disk, get a frisbee.

Is your inablility to understand what is posted willful or genetic? I'll say it again. The force of expansion is very low, accumulates with distance, and is overwhelmed by gravity out to a distance of 200 million lys. You've been told that for three weeks, and still don't get it. Basically, yes. Gravitation falls off as the square of the distance. Expansion increases linearly with distance. At about 200 million lys, outside the local galactic supergroup, expansion becomes stronger than gravitational attraction. Again, you've been told this for over three weeks, but appear unable, or unwilling to grasp the point. And more to the point, your claims of contraction are directly contradicted by observation. Again, this has been pointed out to you time after time since you started posting this on physforum back on June 12. You continually ignore everything, just as you're doing here. The question is will the moderators allow you to continue to violate rule one for the next three weeks before trashing this thread. I say trash it now.

We're now thirty posts in, and there's been no evidence, no predictions, no reasonable argument made. Just Prophet12's repetitive assertions, and vague references to a non-existent, unpublished, unreferenced theory. This thread should be trashed.

It's not that they tried, it's that there was a lot of speculation about it in the popular press, and the statement was made to put the doom-sayers to rest.

I've lost count of how many times it's been explained to you that the force of gravity overwhelms expansion on scales less than 200 million lys. Yet you persist in saying that if the universe was expanding we would see that expansion in the Milky Way, and Andromeda would not be approaching. And again, it's been explained numerous times that the gravitational attraction of SBHs is no more than the attraction attributable to normal mass of the same amount, that things are not being pulled into SBHs from all over the universe, that the force of gravity falls off with the square of the distance, and that there are stars in stable orbits around the Milky Way's central SBH as close as 15 light hours. However, you persist in ignoring all this, probably because you just don't understand it. There is no expansion taking with 200 million lys. Your lack of comprehension can only be attributed to willful ignorance on your part.

Prophet12 has been going on about this for three weeks on another forum, and has never paid any attention when his erroneous assumptions have been corrected. My prediction is that he's not going to pay any attention here either.

And when you look at the guy who jumped out of the plane next to you at the same time you did, you see he's relatively motionless. Which is not what you see when you look at the universe. And when you look at the ground, you see it is approaching you. Which is not what you see when you look at the universe. Pretty poor example trying to support an unsupportable position.

You're referencing what could charitably be call a crank site. The papers you refer to are crank garbage.

This belongs in Speculations, not in a mainstream science thread.

In order to get along, matter and antimatter need magnetic mediation.