ACG52

No, it ASCENDED over time. Not only don't you have any real conception of physics, you apparently have no idea what Darwin said either. (BTW, it had nothing to do with physics or cosmology in any way.)

When we look at the CMBR, what we are seeing is the cooled down lignt from the surface of last scattering, which occured at 377,000 years after the initial expansion. The CMBR fills the entire universe, and is remarkably uniform. It has a perfect Black Body spectrum, which is not something that individual sources can produce, and the spectrum is so close to the predicted values that the error bars are dots. (Look up COBE and WMAP) We've been observing cosmological expansion for almost a hundred years now, with increasingly accurate and more powerful instruments. And they all tell us pretty much the same thing, in increasingly more detail. I prefer theory, experimentation, observation and mathematics over 'logic'.

And in almost every case, the individually inspired researcher was an EDUCATED individually inspired researcher.

The theory exactly predicts the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, predicts the ratio of primordial hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium, and is substantiated by observation of the cosmological red-shift. What's your logic done for science lately?

Agreed.

That you find your own logic more palatable is not surprising, however your position is contradicted by observation and theory alike.

There is no center of the universe, and there is no edge of the expansion. Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space (outside of gravitationally bound objects).

Except this in no way explains the delayed quantum eraser experiments.

No, that's incorrect. When the measurement is made at the slit which shows the particle went through, the interference pattern disappears.

Many-worlds is far from being accepted mainstream physics, and the fact that you think it is simply demonstrates your abysmal understanding of physics. So now you have another forum where you can cut and paste the same things you've been posting for years.

g_a is of the opinion that actual education is damaging. He is obviously totally undamaged.

Accurate, not complete. If current theory accurately describes how an aspect of the physical universe works, and the new model predicts something else, then the new model does not accurately describe the physical universe.

Your equation is a bag of garbage, shaken and then dumped on a table. You would be more accurate making predictions based on reading sheep's entrails.

Everyone has an opinion. In this case it's word salad put together incorrectly.

You take a bunch of letters, numbers and symbols, throw them into a blender, and post the result.

Yes, by the same guy.

I prefer bottling. After you bottle, fermentation continues for another week or so. This gives a more highly carbonated beer than the barrel. (IMO)

Any real physicst also know the theories, it's predictions, and it's confirmations.

Irony.

Your impression is correct. Relativistic mass does not affect the gravitational field. An energy field can also produce gravity, but again, not relativistic energy.

The usual ignorant nonsense.

No the redshift is proportional to the distance from any point in the universe, not just Earth.

If your setting up a still, you're not brewing, you're distilling alcohol. Brewing beer involves water, hops, and barley.

One idea is that dark energy is a negative energy, which creates a negative pressure. A negative pressure is expansive, just as a positive pressure is compressive.

Hear's my take on it. Light will always travel by the shortest route between two points. This is called the geodesic. In a curved space-time, the geodesic is a curve. Curving space-time is gravity. So in the presence of a gravitational field, light follows the curve of space imparted by that field. ( or the whole thing is a matter of the geometry of space-time, either way the result is the same.)