Expansion of Space

[beecee]

11 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I believe it is validated and able to make predictions, just as Newtonian Mechanics is able, yet Einstein came up with a more comprehensive conceptualization for the same thing. Now, with quantum physics, we do have a concept that seems to fit the data so far, just as relativity does for mechanics, but they do not fit together. So either one of them is incorrect, both or incorrect, or both are correct. Either way, just because I can convert temperature from Celsius to Fahrenheit and back, doesn't mean either of those scales are Universally true. The scale itself is just a conceptualization to quantify our experience of differences in energy.

No, both are correct and make correct observable observations within their respective spheres of influence and applicability. Yes as of this time they seem to be mutually exclusive and the need for an observable validated QGT is constantly being worked on. But that certainly is no excuse for making fraudulent and unsupported claims and inferences about near all areas of cosmology, which you seem to revel in for some weird reason.

Quote

Space expands, this is universally agreed upon? Is it Metric or Fractal?

While spacetime certainly expands, we do not as yet have a verifiable quantum theory of gravity.

 

Quote

I would see if the rate of inflation was constant. If not, I would place two objects in space who's magnetic repulsion was exactly proportionate to their gravitational attraction. If space expands intrinsically, as in a metric expansion the repulsion would hold the objects at equilibrium, they would not accrete, but gravity would hold them at equilibrium, but if the space expands between them, as in a fractal expansion, they should move apart.

Spacetime expansion is observable over very large scales. Over smaller scales, (galactic walls, groups of galaxies, stellar systems, stars, planets, ect) the forces of gravity, EMF, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, are able to overcome the expansion. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by beecee

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 9/11/2017 at 5:52 PM, beecee said:

No, both are correct and make correct observable observations within their respective spheres of influence and applicability. Yes as of this time they seem to be mutually exclusive and the need for an observable validated QGT is constantly being worked on. But that certainly is no excuse for making fraudulent and unsupported claims and inferences about near all areas of cosmology, which you seem to revel in for some weird reason.

I do revel in it, as do you, being a frequent responder to my fraudulent inferences and unsupported claims (which I do appreciate). Revel in it because it interests me. I read the Holy Vedas, a Buddhist Sutra, the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Bible, the Torah, and the Kitab-I-Aqdas (Bahi' Faith), as I keep hard copies in my living room at all times. During my three Bible study groups and attendance at two services every week also seems to weirdly revel as well.

Unfortunately, I don't find that they are able to provide a comprehensive understanding of the reality that I seem to perceive. So then I revel in Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, or even Charles Darwin (Epic in scale and perception, but dreadfully dry). This leads me to study things like Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Relativity, Field theory, Infinite Set Theory. Which forces you begin to understand things like integrated calculus, probability distributions, Law of Squares, Monster Modules, J-invariance, Q-functions, or Infinite Sets. Still I continue to explore authors like Jung, Maslow, all the way back to Immanuel Kant... I even have a collection of Edgar Cayce as well, and the only thing that I've come to learn absolutely, is that everything becomes interesting at a deep enough level.

So in all those things I revel in, there isn't really anyone in my whole reality that I know that seems to be able to have a conversation with me without me having to introduce a lot of old ideas in order to present one new one. So I look for outlets, this forum being one of them. I use it to present some ideas in areas that don't make sense to a lot of people. Whether or not you believe me, I do understand the accepted theories, at least on a conceptual level, as well as some of the math, but not well enough to be fluent (disambiguation from Newton's method, no pun intended). Part of the reason I do, is because of the feedback I receive from people like yourself, so thank you sincerely.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or make a bold statement, I'm just trying to figure it out just like everyone else.

[beecee]

9 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or make a bold statement, I'm just trying to figure it out just like everyone else.

Interesting post you have made. Let me say you have read far more than I, but in the main, I have contained myself to reputable scientific publications and authors, although being raised as a Catholic, I do have some knowledge of the bible. One exception I did once make to the "reputable publications and authors"I stipulated was a book I read called "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner. I consequently had that debunked point by point by an astronomer on another now defunct forum. Let me say that while reading to gain knowledge is admirable and should be encouraged, proper instructions and the necessary academic credentials  are also necessary. I obviously do not fill that part. The part of your post that interested me was your comment on when you started reading the "reputable"stuff that while you found it "epic in scale and perception, you also found it dry" It had the opposite effect on me. I was in awe as to how our incumbent models were able to make such validated predictions and found it mouth watering stuff and an impetus to further reading and forums such as this.

The thing is we have real validated evidence the universe is expanding in the cosmological red shifts, and that is further enhanced by "Hubble's Law" and the recessional velocities of the distant galaxies is proportional to their distances from us. The "tired light"hypothetical was debunked long ago.

There is still much for astronomers and cosmologists to learn naturally, but since those heady Einstein days in the early part of the 20th century, we have made giant leaps and bounds.

 

[Strange]

10 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I do understand the accepted theories, at least on a conceptual level

I see no evidence of that. Your descriptions of GR, for example, appear to bear no relation at all to the actual theory.