Universe Expansion vs Contraction

[Prophet12]

The predictions are already backed up with data. The theory simply fits the data past, present and future.

 

And it is not my predictions, its the theory's predictions/explanations.

 

Posted quote-

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.

//

Well then, pay attention. Expansion/GR would say because of expansion of the universe we are moving/receding from every object. Yet evidence is we are contracting into BHoles etc. Somebody just posted Andromeda may mot be a good example because its close and going to contract into us ect.

 

What better evidence than that! for contraction while expansionist think we are expanding. If we are truly expanding as if the universe of matter/objects are actually receding from every other object, then it would be impossible for so many objects/matter/masses to be contracting together.

 

Snell's varying acceleration contraction in a spiral is the only plausible explanation, and it is observable and verifiable.

 

Here is a prediction by the theory, objects will continue to contract into each other, and the contraction will accelerate over time.

 

Peace

[Bignose]

The predictions are already backed up with data. The theory simply fits the data past, present and future.

 

And it is not my predictions, its the theory's predictions/explanations.

 

Posted quote-

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.

//

Well then, pay attention. Expansion/GR would say because of expansion of the universe we are moving/receding from every object. Yet evidence is we are contracting into BHoles etc. Somebody just posted Andromeda may mot be a good example because its close and going to contract into us ect.

 

What better evidence than that! for contraction while expansionist think we are expanding. If we are truly expanding as if the universe of matter/objects are actually receding from every other object, then it would be impossible for so many objects/matter/masses to be contracting together.

 

Snell's varying acceleration contraction in a spiral is the only plausible explanation, and it is observable and verifiable.

 

Here is a prediction by the theory, objects will continue to contract into each other, and the contraction will accelerate over time.

 

Peace

words, words, words..... all I see are words.

 

Please take a look at the paper I provided. It makes many graphs depicting the predictions made by GR and the observations. And show just how close GR and those measurements are.

 

Your words aren't enough. You say contract, but contract how quickly? Contraction has ramifications on how other things are affected, for example light. Also, cosmic background radiation. And so on, and so on.

 

Just saying 'contract' isn't enough. You need to demonstrate how the idea derives predictions based on it, and then how well those ideas jive with what is observed. Again, please use the paper I linked above as a template. You should be able to recreate that paper with your idea and show us that it is even better than GR.

 

If you don't or can't, them I am sorry, but what you are doing isn't science. It is story telling. It is a fiction. Story telling is good on its own, but it sure isn't science.

 

Here's another.... your say your theory eliminated the need for dark matter.

 

OK, fine.

 

Then please use your idea to show exactly what these guys mapped when they created their dark matter map: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes

 

And again, not words. You should be able to use the mathematics behind your idea to recreate exactly that dark matter map and show how what they think is dark matter is really just an effect of your contraction.

 

Can you do it?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Bignose

[ACG52]

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.

[Prophet12]

Simple?

 

Its as simple as this, GR and expansionist with their evidence/observations say/predict every object in the galaxy/universe is receding (expanding through space) away from each other; if that is empirically true, any object under this receding/expansion influence (which they claim every object is) then!, no object which exist separate of another should ever contract into another.

 

You do the rest/tests, we already have and the conclusions obvious.

 

Again, Snell's Theory says objects-galaxies-universe are in a state/process of contraction into each other, and that process of contraction is accelerating (because of the massive masses like black holes is increasing in mass and therefore gravitational force by 1- increasing massive of the BHs and, 2- proximity of the outside object is getting closer) because of increases in gravity do to increased mass=gravity and proximity of the objects (ongoing contraction towards the BH).

 

Its really quite simple and it started with this question he says: how can every object in the universe be perceived as receding when some are actually contracting into each other as into black holes?

 

Peace

[ACG52]

 

 

Its as simple as this, GR and expansionist with their evidence/observations say/predict every object in the galaxy/universe is receding (expanding through space) away from each other; if that is empirically true, any object under this receding/expansion influence (which they claim every object is) then!, no object which exist separate of another should ever contract into another.

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.

 

 

 

Again, Snell's Theory says objects-galaxies-universe are in a state/process of contraction into each other, and that process of contraction is accelerating (because of the massive masses like black holes is increasing in mass and therefore gravitational force by 1- increasing massive of the BHs and, 2- proximity of the outside object is getting closer) because of increases in gravity do to increased mass=gravity and proximity of the objects (ongoing contraction towards the BH).

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.

 

 

 

Its really quite simple and it started with this question he says: how can every object in the universe be perceived as receding when some are actually contracting into each other as into black holes?

There is no expansion taking with 200 million lys. Your lack of comprehension can only be attributed to willful ignorance on your part.

[Prophet12]

Bignose-

 

I viewed the link, its the same babble as many others: dark matter is undetectable but its effects felt yada yada; they dont understand dark matter but they are getting closer bla bla.

 

Here is another prediction, my own not the theory, if you are chasing dark matter or dark energy, you are chasing nothing in the dark.

 

Dark matter/energy/force is a necessary invention for the GR-expansionist's fallacy-----> now can you see?

 

Peace

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.

[ACG52]

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.

[Prophet12]

So, let me get what you agc32 are saying- within so many light years aWay-MW there is no expansion??? but we are in a expanding universe.!!!?

 

The expansionist, GR, claim we are all in same state of expansion universe.

 

There has to be some misunderstanding, your comments lack logic/explanation.

 

You are either a static, expansion or contract GR-universe. Decide then continue.

 

Peace

So, ACG52, what you claim is gravity is so weak beyond so many ly that any matter/object will continue infinitely (even in acceleration) away from any others? But the one inside the ly limit will contract or orbit/static ?

 

Interesting but fallacy. All matter/mass has gravitational effect no matter how small and how distant, especially in the presence (same universe) of such mass as in our universe. Your ly year limit could simply be disproved by a mass the size beyond the size of universe- in fact-

 

This should be the way we perceive the universe, as one unit of mass/force/energy of which no single piece can/will escape (its gravity).

 

Perhaps- The theory is revolutionary, and many simply do not understand.

[ACG52]

 

 

So, let me get what you agc32 are saying- within so many light years aWay-MW there is no expansion??? but we are in a expanding universe.!!!?

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.

 

 

 

So, ACG52, what you claim is gravity is so weak beyond so many ly that any matter/object will continue infinitely (even in acceleration) away from any others? But the one inside the ly limit will contract or orbit/static

Basically, yes.

 

 

Interesting but fallacy. All matter/mass has gravitational effect no matter how small and how distant, especially in the presence (same universe) of such mass as in our universe. Your ly year limit could simply be disproved by a mass the size beyond the size of universe- in fact-

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.

Edited July 2, 2013 by ACG52

[krash661]

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]

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.

ACG52,

 

I understand precisely what u explain, how gravity (force) is reduced the further away matter get apart etc. Thats nothing new and again fails to impress or contradict the theory.

 

However, perhaps you fail to fully understand what the theory explains. Here is my comments regarding such: 1- the perceived expansion is everywhere, not just past the ly limit u describe: example the redshift detected by Hubble and why Einstein changed GR from static to expansion GR, that was well within your (false) ly limit (think!!!).

 

2- the acceleration in expansion, claimed by current expansionist observations flys directly contrary any outward expansion theory (big bang) when considering the effects of any gravity of any mass that anything is receding away from, no matter how diminished the gravity is, it certainly can not be causing acceleration in expansion.....

 

. so invent something to explain it, call it dark matter/energy, and the invention cant have any effects measurements etc it is only to explain the unexplainable-expansion.

 

Can u understand now? I understand u, can u understand the theory-universe?

 

Peace

[ACG52]

 

 

1- the perceived expansion is everywhere, not just past the ly limit u describe: example the redshift detected by Hubble and why Einstein changed GR from static to expansion GR, that was well within your (false) ly limit (think!!!).

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.

 

 

 

the acceleration in expansion, claimed by current expansionist observations flys directly contrary any outward expansion theory (big bang) when considering the effects of any gravity of any mass that anything is receding away from, no matter how diminished the gravity is, it certainly can not be causing acceleration in expansion.....

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.

 

 

 

and the invention cant have any effects measurements etc it is only to explain the unexplainable-expansion.

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.

Edited July 2, 2013 by ACG52

[Prophet12]

Agc52,

 

Sliphers measurements that Hubble used in his work was of distant galaxies, and from that expansionism proceeded.

 

Yet in effect what are you claiming? That each super galactic group is isolated and each will go off in essentially their own isolated group-gravitational bubble infinitely away from each other group, accelerating away!

 

Interesting but again fallacy.

 

First, there is nothing to explain acceleration in expansion, especially with the given progress of contraction already obtained and in process.

 

Second, to imagine super groups are isolated And so not effect each other is to defy physics/logic.

 

Third, to imagine these groups pulled unclustered matter into first celestial bodies then to solar systems to galaxies to black holes, to clusters and super groups and all way from each other And then continue in expansion away from each other, accelerated by some force unmeasurable etc, is fantasy.

 

 

Peace

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

A few things.

1. ACG52, when did you become a moderator? If you think something needs moderator action, you report it. It is not your job to decide when things violate the rules.

2. ACG52 and krash661, this is not physforums and it would be appreciated if you could keep issues from other forums out of here. We do not enact decisions here based on what happens outside of SFN.

3. Prophet12, this is your last chance to provide evidence and back up your claims. Waving off tested theories as babble because it doesn't conform with what you want to say is true won't cut it.

[ACG52]

 

 

Yet in effect what are you claiming? That each super galactic group is isolated and each will go off in essentially their own isolated group-gravitational bubble infinitely away from each other group, accelerating away!

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.

 

 

 

First, there is nothing to explain acceleration in expansion, especially with the given progress of contraction already obtained and in process.

There are no observation of any kind showing contraction. This is purely a fantasy of yours.

 

 

 

Second, to imagine super groups are isolated And so not effect each other is to defy physics/logic.

You simply have no idea of the effect of gravity and the attenuation of gravity by distance.

 

 

 

Third, to imagine these groups pulled unclustered matter into first celestial bodies then to solar systems to galaxies to black holes, to clusters and super groups and all way from each other And then continue in expansion away from each other, accelerated by some force unmeasurable etc, is fantasy.

And this simply makes no sense at all. Again, you show no comprehension regarding the action of gravity.

[Prophet12]

The proof of contraction instead of expansion is abound:

 

First- evidence of most matter in its current forms (planets, galaxies, cluster, super clusters) all exhibit contraction process rather than expansion, and what is evident here and most every where confirms contraction rather than expansion.

 

Second- redshift, which is why/what most evidently started expansionist theory etc, can be explained away by the example provided and as misleading in the instant topic.

 

When contraction is acknowledged, instead of expansion, the necessity for the (unexplainable) dark matter/energy is eliminated. Meaning with contraction no dark is necessary to validate observations and physics/orbits.

 

Finally, when we accept the big bang Theory, expansion should not be accelerating as it is currently perceived. Again the acceleration in expansion perception is confirmed by 'redshift'. An acceleration unexplainable by current physics, big bang theory or anything except something specifically invented to explain the perception. Something they admit can not be measured, seen etc, except to explain the trappings of perceived accelerated expansion.

 

There are other evidences, and i will post some as time permits etc.

 

I have sent message to the author of the concerns for evidence etc, and am awaiting a response.

 

Understand i am in support of the Theory etc. Nd am helping research and validate it; stating more than what is written or told me by its author, i do not have the authority to do.

 

I can answer questions to the best it explains, or report back and get answers etc.

 

My participation in this forum is strictly informal and my attempt to disseminate information and help finalize issues science may have with the theory. To that all pertinent questions fielded and answered.

 

Peace

[ACG52]

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.

[Prophet12]

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

[Bignose]

Bignose-

 

I viewed the link, its the same babble as many others: dark matter is undetectable but its effects felt yada yada; they dont understand dark matter but they are getting closer bla bla.

Tell me this. If you can so easily dismiss someone else's work with a few yadda, yaddas... why the hell shouldn't we do exactly the same with yours?

 

Hmmm, if only there was a way to tell a good idea from a bad one.

 

I know! Let's compare the predictions by each idea and objectively compare how close those predictions are to measured reality! In this count, Prophet, it is GR thousands and thousands / your idea 0.

[ACG52]

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

[Prophet12]

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

[ACG52]

 

 

The evidence he presents is that 'every galaxy' is having space added between them.

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]

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

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.

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Making more claims does not constitute evidence. This thread is closed and you are not permitted to reopen the topic.