Universe Expansion vs Contraction

[Prophet12]

New Theory explains accelerating contraction of the galaxy and universe instead of expansion. Snell's Theory shows why redshift (mis) led Einstein to change his static General Relativity universe from static to expanding; and explains both static and expansion is wrong, its actually contracting. The Theory eliminate the 'necessity' of dark matter or dark energy. The theory states that by 'varying acceleration in spiral pattern' objects appear to be moving away (redshif-expansing) when all are accelerating into contracted space such as black holes and onto cluster and super cluster etc.

 

The 'varying acceleration' of each object is varying because of the varied proximity to the massive gravitation pulling each galaxy-solar system-object etc; the acceleration is based on the gravitational force and proximity from the dominant mass/force and each object.

 

Interested? Post your questions etc-

 

More info to follow.

[ACG52]

Search for Snell's theory and you will find NOTHING. There's Snell's law of refraction, but that's not what this .... poster is talking about.

 

Snell's theory is totally a bogus fiction created by this... poster.

 

He's been spamming this nonsense over on physforum.com.

 

This belongs in speculations, at best.

Edited July 2, 2013 by ACG52

[Prophet12]

Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research, and i have yet to find anyone to debunk it and from everything it explains, it matches up with reality, sound physics/law, observations etc totally. It answers what others only question or they say is a mystery... Its no mystery to the theory.

 

Most posts against it is typical try to detract without knowing what it says, simply because it proves/explains contraction instead of expansion of mainstream etc.

 

Pay attention, mainstream relativity-GR is about to change. Yet because the crowd's momentum is what it is, change will be...?

 

Peace

[krash661]

Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research, and i have yet to find anyone to debunk it and from everything it explains, it matches up with reality, sound physics/law, observations etc totally. It answers what others only question or they say is a mystery... Its no mystery to the theory.

 

Most posts against it is typical try to detract without knowing what it says, simply because it proves/explains contraction instead of expansion of mainstream etc.

 

Pay attention, mainstream relativity-GR is about to change. Yet because the crowd's momentum is what it is, change will be...?

 

Peace

this does not exist.

it's your own thought.

 

simple.

 

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than side step it,

so i used my access and found nothing.

 

edit-

my problem is i can not even find a white paper or preprint.

which is kind of odd.

 

i can not even find it in review.

which is very odd.

 

it's actually your own thought

which explains everything,

it explains why i can not find it in peer review ,why i cannot find white paper or preprint,

 

it's literally that simple.

 

 

Snell's-group

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sugexp=cpsugrpqhmsignedin&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=664XcgFHwsBtboOFu-Ar7A&pq=snell&cp=8&gs_id=c&xhr=t&q=Snell+group&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Snell+gr&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6ca84d98d48f74bf&biw=1296&bih=905&ion=1

Edited July 2, 2013 by krash661

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have moved this to Speculations.

 

Prophet12, be aware that this forum has an additional set of rules that you will need to keep in mind when posting. One of those rules is that your claims require evidence. This thread will be closed very quickly if you cannot follow this.

 

[Prophet12]

Ok- what evidence proving the theory do you want? The universe? The GR claim that the universe is expanding, and now perceived as not only expanding but at and increasingly accelerated rate? And the acceleration of the expansion can not be explained by Relativity without necesseties for unexplainables.

 

Big bang theory has in it logic an expansion that slows, not accelerates... True or false? Yet mainstream says its proven, expansion is accelerating. Einstein relativity said universe is static, then redshift was detected, and he changed relativity to expansion- all the rest followed that.

 

Redshift was the (mis) perception that preceeded expansionist etc.

 

See the example of O1, O2, O3 acceleraring to B for debunking the redshift that led Relativity 'predicting' expansion.

 

And, for now, until Snell decides to make public himself etc, i am perhaps as close to the actual 'document of the theory' you have access to. Instead of looking to that as a problem, he says its a luxury you unknowingly disregard.

 

Ask your questions, i/we will supply what advances validity. The theory stands on its own, i or Snell or anyone else is just parties regarding it. The theory is about relativty, the universe, physics etc- it has nothing to do with persons like Snell, me or Einstein.

 

Ask pertenant questions regarding the theory, as its been explained, and we will supply what evidence we have. We welcome all scientific inquiries or research.

 

Peace

[krash661]

Ok- what evidence proving the theory do you want?

 

Ask your questions, i/we will supply what advances validity.

 

Ask pertenant questions regarding the theory, as its been explained, and we will supply what evidence we have. We welcome all scientific inquiries or research.

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

 

for this to be,

" Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research "

 

i can not even find a white paper or preprint.

which is kind of odd.

 

i can not even find it in review.

which is very odd.

 

Snell's-group

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sugexp=cpsugrpqhmsignedin&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=664XcgFHwsBtboOFu-Ar7A&pq=snell&cp=8&gs_id=c&xhr=t&q=Snell+group&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Snell+gr&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=6ca84d98d48f74bf&biw=1296&bih=905&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b

 

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

[EdEarl]

I hesitate to post in this thread, because I feel that nothing I can say will be heard.

 

The people who post on this forum who work to understand scientific knowledge have a consensus based on their study of science as published by scientists over several thousand years. You propose an alternative viewpoint; thus, it is your responsibility to present evidence to try to convince people in the forum of your ideas. Either reference papers that support your ideas o not. Evidence is something that can be observed and explained in every detail via the scientific method.

 

Edited July 2, 2013 by EdEarl

[Prophet12]

Excellent EdEarl-

 

Test this-

 

Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3

are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest.

 

Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity.

 

To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year.

 

Questions:

1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be getting expansive-greater?

2- would light shift be red or blue between them.

3- if universe which is space with objects/matter existing in it (not space-void-etc) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater-expanding from or at the first measurement or last?

4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion relative to each other and space between them while in a state of universe contraction?

 

This simple example is to help others understand the (mis) perception of redshift which led to expansionism etc. The example is to help understand Snell Theory which explains contraction of the universe instead of Einstein's original GR of static universe which was changed after redshift was detected to/change to expansion.

 

Peace

[krash661]

Excellent EdEarl-

 

Test this-

 

Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3

are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest.

 

Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity.

 

To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year.

 

Questions:

1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be getting expansive-greater?

2- would light shift be red or blue between them.

3- if universe which is space with objects/matter existing in it (not space-void-etc) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater-expanding from or at the first measurement or last?

4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion relative to each other and space between them while in a state of universe contraction?

 

This simple example is to help others understand the (mis) perception of redshift which led to expansionism etc. The example is to help understand Snell Theory which explains contraction of the universe instead of Einstein's original GR of static universe which was changed after redshift was detected to/change to expansion.

 

Peace

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than conveniently side step it again,

 

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

[EdEarl]

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than conveniently side step it again,

 

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

I agree. Besides, you did not provide an observation, merely a hypothetical. We are not asking for a hypothesis; rather, something we can see, touch, feel, taste, or hear.

[Bignose]

Ok- what evidence proving the theory do you want?

Please review this paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

 

Many, many citations for experiments done testing GR as well as showing how closely the results from those experiments match the predictions from GR.

 

What evidence I want is for you to provide exactly the same for your idea. Show how your idea's predictions are derived, and then make plots of those predictions. I want to see a plot with your predictions, GR's predictions, and the best measured data. If your predictions are better than GR's, then people will pay attention.

[Prophet12]

Krash-

 

What do you mean source- i have told in posts and personal msgs, i am as close as you will get to Snell (the source) for now; that is dictated by him. For now just accept I am the best source on the Theory available to you/forums until he decides otherwise.

 

Peace

[krash661]

I agree. Besides, you did not provide an observation, merely a hypothetical. We are not asking for a hypothesis; rather, something we can see, touch, feel, taste, or hear.

you should see this shit on the other forum,

 

lol

Krash-

 

What do you mean source- i have told in posts and personal msgs, i am as close as you will get to Snell (the source) for now; that is dictated by him. For now just accept I am the best source on the Theory available to you/forums until he decides otherwise.

 

Peace

you know exactly what i'm and alex talking about.

refer to post # 7 in this topic.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77278-universe-expansion-vs-contraction/?p=754545

Edited July 2, 2013 by krash661

[EdEarl]

Krash-

 

What do you mean source- i have told in posts and personal msgs, i am as close as you will get to Snell (the source) for now; that is dictated by him. For now just accept I am the best source on the Theory available to you/forums until he decides otherwise.

 

Peace

You are a person and so am I. You are not an expert and neither am I. Your word is worth no more than mine. You are not a source and neither am I. I understand my ignorance, do you?

[Prophet12]

Ok, test this. Current evidence is interpreted as the universe is expanding in every direction, and not only expanding but the expanding is accelerating. The acceleration in the expanding defies Big Bang theory expectations/predictions, GR and observations at the Black Hole and galaxy level being matter/information is going in not out.

 

Your test: find the center point of the Milky Way galaxy Black Hole, and the find the furthest object in the galaxy from that BH center point, and test the distance change. Test the same regarding those objects on the edge of the event horizon, there contraction into the hole is faster AND their acceleration is greater than those further away.

 

Simply because we can not pin point to center point of the BH, and we measure with light between each ' outside the BH object' in relation to us, we do not perceive contraction but perceive expansion.

 

Find the center point of the BH and the test the measurements! Then you will understand; whats happening in our galaxy is happening in the universe.

 

Peace

[ACG52]

This certainly doesn't meet the first rule of the speculations forum

 

 

 

• Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

This should be trashed and locked.

[Prophet12]

The evidence first of all is the observation of objects/information going into Black hole at all galaxies; coupled with evidence of the massiveness of the BHs. Its that expansion?

 

Tests are as good as the information tested/interpreted. Unless a point is located at the center of what is being expanded from, expansion is nothing but a perception. Evidence of this is the observations of distant galaxies like Andromeda?, is it contracting out from itself/its BH or contracting? if all the galaxies seem to be contracting but redshift/GR say they are expanding, why? Whats happening there is similar to entire universe. Test it all you want, its obvious if you remove the cloud of misperceptions.

 

Peace

[pwagen]

Andromeda might not be the best example to use when it comes to expansion, since it's not only one of our closest neighbors, but also moving towards us.

[Bignose]

I want to see a plot with your predictions, GR's predictions, and the best measured data.

Prophet12,

Why don't you do this? All this talk, talk, talk is meaningless. Show us the usefulness of your idea by actually using it to make predictions.

[michel123456]

Excellent EdEarl-

 

Test this-

 

Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3

are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest.

 

Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity.

 

To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year.

 

Questions:

1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be getting expansive-greater?

2- would light shift be red or blue between them.

3- if universe which is space with objects/matter existing in it (not space-void-etc) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater-expanding from or at the first measurement or last?

4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion relative to each other and space between them while in a state of universe contraction?

 

This simple example is to help others understand the (mis) perception of redshift which led to expansionism etc. The example is to help understand Snell Theory which explains contraction of the universe instead of Einstein's original GR of static universe which was changed after redshift was detected to/change to expansion.

 

Peace

If you want to say that accelerated objects moving along the same path are observing each other as receding, then yes.

[krash661]

Galaxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

 

black holes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

 

Astronomical spectroscopy / Red shift: the Doppler effect in light

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/18A.html

 

An important consideration for astronomical spectroscopy is the correction for red shift (or blue shift), a change in the wavelength, and hence the color, of light that has traveled over long distances to reach us.

Red shift: the Doppler effect in light

 

It turns out that the light reaching us is predominantly red-shifted. Understanding this red shift is a powerful endorsement of the theory of cosmic expansion. In this model, our universe is expanding outwards uniformly. By analyzing the light from an object, and measuring the extent to which it has been distorted by red shift, we are able to estimate the rate of expansion using Hubble’s Law: recessional velocity as determined from red shift is proportional to distance (for distant objects).

BWorking back using this rate of expansion, we can estimate the age of the universe. This means we are effectively looking back in time, looking at light that was emitted in the early days of the universe.

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than conveniently side step it again,

 

once again, please provide a source,

Andromeda might not be the best example to use when it comes to expansion, since it's not only one of our closest neighbors, but also moving towards us.

pseudoscience

 

-fixed ideas

-no peer review

-selects only favorable discoveries

-sees criticism as conspiracy

-non-repeatable results

-claims of widespread usefulness

-"ball park " measurement

 

Prophet12 response,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=45755&view=findpost&p=617239

 

Facts are:

Idea/theory/explaination is anything but fixed idea following

Offered for (scientific) review

Selects any discovery, especially the recent

Encourages any constructive critique

Consistant results and explains observations in any

Has widespread implications, no claims other than obvious

Very specific measurement, more discerning than present physics and no needs for 'constant' fudge factors to help theory match reality.

**** nuff said****

[michel123456]

You are on an airplane with a parachute.

A guy before you jumps in free fall.

After a second you jump in free fall

The next second a 3rd guy jumps in free fall.

 

Looking in front of you you will observe the first guy receding from you.

Looking back you will observe the 3rd guy receding from you.

 

All 3 observers will observe each other receding.

[Prophet12]

Michael- you post

You are on an airplane with a parachute.

A guy before you jumps in free fall.

After a second you jump in free fall

The next second a 3rd guy jumps in free fall.

 

Looking in front of you you will observe the first guy receding from you.

Looking back you will observe the 3rd guy receding from you.

 

All 3 observers will observe each other receding.

//

Exactly, you perceive correctly! Yet if you are on the ground directly below them, what do you observe? Not receding (expansion)!!! So who's perception is correct for the universe, those jumping out of the moving object and moving and seeing receding, or those on the ground seeing ? contraction?

 

Peace

[ACG52]

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.