Prophet12A Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 Is the current/popular beliefs wrong that 1- the universe is expanding and expanding at an ever increasing rate, 2- dark energy or dark matter must exist to explain expansion? Einstein's equations/theory and subsequent based beliefs explained the universe as stable; Hubble's redshift caused a (expansion) constant be inserted, and again a later/recent 'redshift' required another change to an ever increasing constant be included in the equation...in effect proving both the stable and increasing assumptions/beliefs wrong already. Could the ever increasing constant be wrong also? And if they are all wrong, what is the 'other' explanation? After the 2011-2013 composition/review of (Rights Reserved) Snell's Theory on Varying Acceleration (contraction into a spiral/black hole) which explains our universe is 'contracting at an ever increasing rate', plus with further inquiry on such, Snell's finding/theory seems to rise to the top as the only logical everything theory/explanation for understanding the universe and its observable physical events: the universe or the universe's matter/masses is/are contracting at an ever increasing rate....... therefore 'the expansion', dark matter and dark energy is non-existant and why it stays illusive (quoting- 'they are looking for nothing in the dark' about dark matter and expansionist's searching). Is our universe contracting at an ever increasing rate the logical (plausible/provable/scientific) explanation? And if contracting at an ever increasing rate proves and is proven by the observable and predictable, what says expansionists? Does the observable as well as the explainable mandate Expansionism, Dark Energy/Matter all be wrong much like the initial Einstein (stable/increasing) theory so much belief/study/funding is based?
fiveworlds Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 Is the current/popular beliefs wrong that 1- the universe is expanding and expanding at an ever increasing rate, 2- dark energy or dark matter must exist to explain expansion? Well it isn't proved if that's what you mean it is a theory so it could be wrong.
Phi for All Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 Well it isn't proved And what has been "proved" in science?
fiveworlds Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 (edited) And what has been "proved" in science? Lots of things you know that. Like flames can burn etc. Generally if they use the word theory it isn't proven and could be incorrect in some manner. Examples include. The theory of general relativity The big bang theory Darwin's theory of evolution By the way the idea of evolution is basically proven maybe not exactly Darwin's theory but bacteria have been shown to evolve, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Edited May 19, 2016 by fiveworlds
Strange Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 Lots of things you know that. Like flames can burn etc. Generally if they use the word theory it isn't proven and could be incorrect in some manner. Examples include. The theory of general relativity The big bang theory Darwin's theory of evolution By the way the idea of evolution is basically proven maybe not exactly Darwin's theory but bacteria have been shown to evolve, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment You seem to be confusing facts (flames, gravity, evolution, etc) and the theories that attempt to explain them. The former incontrovertibly exist (you don't really need to "prove" facts). The latter are never proven. Is the current/popular beliefs wrong that 1- the universe is expanding and expanding at an ever increasing rate, It is the only model that fits all the evidence. If you have an alternative model, please feel free to present it, the predictions it makes and how well they match observation. 2- dark energy or dark matter must exist to explain expansion? Neither of these are relevant to expansion. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about the theory you are criticising?
Prophet12A Posted May 19, 2016 Author Posted May 19, 2016 Well it isn't proved if that's what you mean it is a theory so it could be wrong. It's difficult to interpret what you are writing 'well it isn't proved if that's what you mean it is theory so it could be wrong' to answer any of the questions.....perhaps you agree, dark matter/energy is not proved so its probably in error or its 'theory' or belief is not 'truth'. You seem to be confusing facts (flames, gravity, evolution, etc) and the theories that attempt to explain them. The former incontrovertibly exist (you don't really need to "prove" facts). The latter are never proven. It is the only model that fits all the evidence. If you have an alternative model, please feel free to present it, the predictions it makes and how well they match observation. Neither of these are relevant to expansion. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about the theory you are criticising? science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ Not relevant to expansion???? Dark energy and dark matter are inventions of their mother-expansion... You seem to be confusing facts (flames, gravity, evolution, etc) and the theories that attempt to explain them. The former incontrovertibly exist (you don't really need to "prove" facts). The latter are never proven. It is the only model that fits all the evidence. If you have an alternative model, please feel free to present it, the predictions it makes and how well they match observation. Neither of these are relevant to expansion. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about the theory you are criticising? science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ Snell's Theory states contraction at an ever increasing rate is happening...Einstein's GR and equations are not in error but the (Hubble)'redshift' interpretation to mean 'expanding universe' and subsequent 'dark matter' to explain expansion is in error. The only plausible theory which is provable and having observable evidence indicate contraction at an increasing rate, rather than expansion at an increasing rate and dark matter etc... Well it isn't proved if that's what you mean it is a theory so it could be wrong. Good, you agree it could be wrong.... Now think of the universe as contracting at an ever increasing rate.....does that solve a lot of the issues facing cosmology/astrophysics while negating the expansionist theory and need for ideas like dark energy and dark matter??? You seem to be confusing facts (flames, gravity, evolution, etc) and the theories that attempt to explain them. The former incontrovertibly exist (you don't really need to "prove" facts). The latter are never proven. It is the only model that fits all the evidence. If you have an alternative model, please feel free to present it, the predictions it makes and how well they match observation. Neither of these are relevant to expansion. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about the theory you are criticising? I have a grasp on the expansionist theory as well as GR and STR etc, expansion fails to have merit. There is no more to know about expansion except that it fails to have explanation except by means of unproven dark matter/energy etc nor does it match observable contraction/evolution/evidence...... your 'criticising' is spelled criticizing 'learn a little more'. Well it isn't proved if that's what you mean it is a theory so it could be wrong. Great, you agree Lots of things you know that. Like flames can burn etc. Generally if they use the word theory it isn't proven and could be incorrect in some manner. Examples include. The theory of general relativity The big bang theory Darwin's theory of evolution By the way the idea of evolution is basically proven maybe not exactly Darwin's theory but bacteria have been shown to evolve, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Good, you have the right idea, expansion is a theory which may (is) wrong. If contraction is what the universe is in a state of, how does expansion theory explain it? How do expansionists explain their current belief that the universe is expanding at an 'ever' increasing rate??
swansont Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 Snell's Theory states contraction at an ever increasing rate is happening ! Moderator Note Normally, you will need to enlighten your audience as to this hypothesis. But we've discussed this before http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77278-universe-expansion-vs-contraction/ You didn't then, and you don't get a second bite at the apple.
Recommended Posts