Prophet12

David, Your question-Spinning In the Milky Way there are about 400 Billion stars. Even if we put them together, it is clear that each one might have a different velocity, phase & direction. How come that the mass of those stars can suddenly triggered them all spinning in one direction and at high velocity??? Under this forum this is speculation: many galaxies are obviously spinning in a spiral pattern. Now for the cause: This velocity curve is due to gravity caused by mass, not of what mainstream tags as missing mass that they claim is also causing expansion. The spin is too common and regular throughout the universe to be explained by DE or DM etc. or to be coincidence Expansionist dont know why, contraction theory has plausible explanation and they eliminate the 'necessity' for DE for expansion, mass/orbit speeds etc., and galaxy spin. All evidences of contraction, not expansion. Good luck-

Kramer, You are on to something, and you make great sense about it. There is problems with SR and GR and constant, and most of the community does not want to accept/hear it. Status quo is how they go; otherwise they don't seem wise at all, at all. Hold their feet to the fire, eventually they will move; the fire/chorus is growing. Swansont, AGC52 and so forth think they know and don't want anything to interrupt their (sleep) comfort. Getting them to think is one thing, thinking they could be wrong is unacceptable, to them. Keep up your good work, your chorus is growing.

Cant support your arguement or you refuse to admit even the obvious, typical; now blame someone else for quiting.... Bye Thought so; try and think past the grey between black and white. mean while i will ask the questions that further confuse the confused, to make the evidence unavoidable to advance science.

When you start that kind of talk it serves no good; and it reflects the evidence your character. Nuff said Your notions about no contraction is contrary to evidence, yiur own explainations of using 'bound' and any definition of black holes etc 'collapsing' , objects 'falling into' so dense nothing escapes, it starts with a mass imploding to form a denser mass, galaxies have them at the centers etc; the contraction is obvious see link : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole for reasonable description. Until you can admit some contraction observations exits in a galaxy and therefore the universe, you will never understand the rift etc. Is there any contraction in the viewable sphere according to you?

Ok, i know what you say, simple. now prove it. The rift as explained is anywhere that contraction events and expansion events exists in same area. By definition you say these super groups are bound by gravity, gravity binding them beyond the force (DE...?) that trys to expand them from one another. The parimerer of the super group (your description) between/out to the parimeter of the next super group, is what is expanding ( according to you these super groups are like bubbles floating away from each other) and i say the super groups are contracting because its self evident as in black holes, galaxies colliding and you say bound by gravity.... Im simply stating what you claim about super groups being bound and the expansion you explain to help you understand either or, cant have observed contraction with expansion and no differences from the two physical and effects. Atty/teaching experience might question you enough to either help you understand, or make you mad because you refuse or fail to effect at all. Your choice.

Agc52- in attempt to repeat what you are saying: the 'flat' relates to the geometry of the universe, that the 3D shape is diff/unknown, you suggest perhaps its a 4D hypersphere. I dont like skipping steps to hypothisis. Think about it shape and folow up with that matter as you will. New approach on application of agc52 super group bound by gravity. Consider this please: if we accept agc52 description of super galactic groups of galaxies/matter expansing away from each other; and therefore, because we can not observe any fixed center or rim (may have none), we say we are expanding away from each other. (side note super groups with ly limits to gravity etc have issues here; thats addressed later if need be) Excellent, we have found/understand the 'rift' between contraction and expansion; expansion in the physical world that we observe presently. This 'rift' has particular significance. Now, please consider this. If we accept the observations we have so far, contraction in super groups moving apart, and we cant see any center or rim (simple-assume none seen) of the universe but we can see center and rim of super groups, is it plausible that instead of 1-the supergroups being flung out into space/expansion by an unknown/DE in accelerated expansion, that it maybe, 2- That the super groups are accelerating into contraction in a spiral at diff rates ( giving the expansion-effects). Think on it, offer comments pro or con. Think of ways to test it or predictions that might follow. A interesting way to test this perhaps is: because these super groups if in a spiral contraction mode, if they are isolated by groups, should have a perceived diff shift on one side to the other; the side towards gravity center (spiral inside) should show signs diff than on other side (outside); and perhaps eventually a flattening of supergroup and universe. And if the super group is on axis And rotating the sides should be shift-changing in relation to each other or gravity/spiral center as some observed over time/rotation. Some may not rotate, and have consistant one side diff than other. Possible evidence is light/gravity/observation shift on side verses side of these super groups. comment on the super group of agc52 and how a different 'perspective' may present-explain the observation(s). Thanks

First the 200mil ly comment i recognize as a repeat answer, the rest is diff material. Please review the previous link on geometry shape of the universe the explain how your stmt of not flat differs from their 'flat' like a piece of paper. I will return later, have guests and outing to attend to. Thanks again

Perhaps its not a sphere but regardless wouldnt the same effects or questions be pertinant to what dark energy does regarding expansion? Pls comment For latest shape see (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html) Also, if you would, comment on what shape you believe it is. If its flat, decribe how expansion in every direction is/can be justified in a flat universe. Pls describe how the 'viewable sphere' as a portion of the whole universe fits within the whole. And if it is not a sphere, how can evenly distributed DE be not effecting matter in all directions, essentially canceling out its effects on matter because of even distribution. Pls comment Thanks

Interested in how u explain the slowing of expansion until the density was low enough to then a start of expansion accelerating. The density of the universe expanding mass sphere should have some place, from its center point out to the rim of the expansion, that the density and therefore gravity of the mass in the sphere s/b greater than or great enough to cause a rift between those slowed and possibly contracting verses those dispersed enough to allow Dark energy to cause it acceleration of expansion again. Pls comment. Second, if whats described fits, would those closer to the Dark energy accelerate expansion faster than those further into the universe mass sphere? Is that what is happening or is it all uniform expansion or reversed? Pls comment.

Appreciate the comments from both of you- Typical? Lol, yes, but the average man thinks he is not. Your observation should not prevent advancing the topic i hope. The Dark Energy referenced for expansion is what in your best guess/definition. Is it possible its similar to virgoH121 dark galaxies or a spread out version(s) of dark matter exerting dark energy explanations? Isn't dark energy simply a kind of gravity without an observable mass? Could black holes without any viewable matter cause dark energy or similar effects of it? AGC52- Pls explain these stmts 1- The only effect Dark Matter has on light is gravitationally. 2-Dark energy increases the rate of cosmological expansion, 3-First of all, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two totally different things. The only thing they have in common is the word Dark. It's a case of poor naming. From those three stmt can someone conclude perhaps both exert something common or gravitational effects from both?

Thanks. Explain more of what you understand of how redshift maybe misleading or unreliable from being effected by anything even Dark Matter/Energy. Dark energy is commonly now referred to in explanation of the universe expansion.... Is there evidence of the Dark E/M having effects on redshift/light measurements?

The current hot topic Dark Energy and Dark Matter has several explainations and stated evidence/effects, namely the assistance in the expansion of the universe of viewable cosmos/matter. One of the latest research findings is that not only is the universe expanding, but expansion is accelerating. Some of the expansion evidence is provided from the detection of redshift, Dark energy mapping etc which is all reliant on light-measurement etc. Paul Marnet published research in spring 2000 titled Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/ where he states: ' The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin. It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.' And there have been other research that doubts the 'evidence' about redshift and Dark Matter or Dark Energy. This forum topic is open for discussion regarding Dark Matter/Energy and more specifically Redshift, light measurements, relativity and all their implications on expansion in the universe.

Please excuse me if offense was taken in any of the previous posting. Word back is this: we do not take aim or wish to attack any persons work/efforts in honor. The NPR quote and comment of the Professor is only the make my/Prophet12 personal observation on expansionist theory/explanation/observations. It by no means represents that the theory speaks to such evidence/persons or works. The/my discussions in this forum will be about the theory; its statements, evidence it explains as contraction evidence, explanations of current expansion mis-perceived evidence, arguments for the theory and against expansion theory. Any answers/information i supply here is to fit that. I would appreciate if the questions or comment help towards that. The Theory predicts/explains contraction at an accelerated rate in spiral patterns; perceived currently as expansion. Peace The point made was how you explain expansion what/when/where Is typically different than other expansion(ists). And i never reject anything outright, unless it comes ill intended. Question- if space is being added between galaxies, bound or unbound in your explanation, how can they collide, cluster or have black holes devour them? Does 'varying acceleration contraction' explain the perception of space being added between them while they still contract, even collide? Peace

Bit of evidence to digest on related subject- NPR interviewed Saul Perlmutter NP winner- quote 'The only thing that you need to know about the universe today is that there's sort of an average distance between galaxies, and that's the universe today. As you go forward into the future and the universe expands, all we mean is that we're pumping extra space between all the galaxies. So if you ask where the expansion is happening, it's happening between the galaxies. It's still infinite, and it will be infinite in the future, and it was infinite in the past. It's just that as you go to the future, we've pumped a little bit more space between every galaxy, and if you think about what that means as you go back in time, that means you're sucking space out between the galaxies. It's becoming denser and denser and denser, perhaps still infinite, but eventually you get to the point where everything's on top of each other.' End quote The evidence he presents is that 'every galaxy' is having space added between them. This is quite different than the AGC52 super group idea posted earlier; where they explained expansion outside the super groups is not happening between galaxies in same group, or all objects in the universe as some indicate. Seems even the expansionist cant agree on what is and what isn't expanding. The evidence is no consensus among expansionist on whats expanding when where and how. Yet, the evidence indicates galaxies collide and get contracted into black holes, clusters And super cluster in direct contradiction to Perlmutters explanation of expansion above. Peace

There is no evidence other than cmbr of an edge of the universe nor a center located, and our viewable sphere shows expansion perceived throughout the viewable sphere, in fact accelerating expansion. And it has been confirmed our viewable sphere is representative of the surrounding un viewable. Yet there is no rift-void space evidence of where contraction starts and expansion continues; true on any scale inside the universe to rim/sphere of the viewable or universe sphere. Physics-math denies the possibility of both 1-big bang expansion and then contraction into current state of universe-galaxies-planets etc all with the present assertions about dark matter/energy and its force/effect, and 2- dark matter/energy effects to 'expand the universe' in its present form and in force against known mass/gravity centralized in the universe/galaxies/mass. The present expansion perception of the universe is simply not physically/mathematically possible with the presence of overwhelming contraction of matter on every physical level of observation available. Peace