Thread: Expansion of the universe.

When we say the the universe is expanding what we are really saying is that photo evidence reaching us today suggests that the universe is expanding however, this data is already some ten billion years old, thus is it not more accurate to say that 10 billion years ago the universe was expanding?

We hve no evidence of what is going on today, indeed if the universe was shrinking at the speed of light we simply would not know, we would see other galaxies and the sky 'as it was' right up until the point it shrank past the point where we are.

You missed part of the point. All galaxies, not just those 10 billion light years away, (except those very close) are moving away from us. Another indicator is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, indicating expansion till now. Further indication is the observation that the expansion has been speeding up since about 5 billion years ago.

Yes but some of that data is 5billion years old also, please think about how old the data is, suppose like a bubble it keeps expanding to a point where it suddenly collapses, we simply would not know. You need to think a little deeper.

Remember we have only one set of data from the present that represents galaxaies fixed at a point in the past, I am referring here to the overal size of the universe at present, all observations of this so far are based on photons arriving here that began their journey billions of years ago, not all galaxies are moving away from each other galactic collisions are many indeed our neighbouring galaxy is on a course of collison with us.

Oh the CMBR data is 15billion years old who know what is happening out there today...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Yes but some of that data is 5billion years old also, please think about how old the data is, suppose like a bubble it keeps expanding to a point where it suddenly collapses, we simply would not know. You need to think a little deeper.

Remember we have only one set of data from the present that represents galaxaies fixed at a point in the past, I am referring here to the overal size of the universe at present, all observations of this so far are based on photons arriving here that began their journey billions of years ago, not all galaxies are moving away from each other galactic collisions are many indeed our neighbouring galaxy is on a course of collison with us.

Oh the CMBR data is 15billion years old who know what is happening out there today...

Here's the thing, While info from those really distant galaxies is 15 billion years old, the info from nearer galaxies isn't. The closer we look, the closer to "Now" we are looking. Or to put in in other terms, We ourselves, are at the "leading edge" of the expansion.

Our data set is based on photons arriving from all points in time from the present to 15 Gy ago. This how the acceleration of the Universal expansion was detected. You plot distance against recession velocity. If the expansion rate doesn't change with time, you get a straight line. If expansion has slowed with time, you get a curve in one direction, and if it has sped up you get a curve in the other.

When this study was done in the 90's it was expected that they would find the second case, as the expansion lost steam against the mutual gravitational attraction of the Universe. The intent was to determine whether or not said attraction was enough to ever slow the expansion to a halt and start a collapse.

The surprise came when they found the third case; instead of slowing, the rate of expansion has increased with time.

The fact that some local galaxies show a blue-shift is due to the fact that we belong to to a gravitational bound group.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

When we say the the universe is expanding what we are really saying is that photo evidence reaching us today suggests that the universe is expanding however, this data is already some ten billion years old, thus is it not more accurate to say that 10 billion years ago the universe was expanding?

We hve no evidence of what is going on today, indeed if the universe was shrinking at the speed of light we simply would not know, we would see other galaxies and the sky 'as it was' right up until the point it shrank past the point where we are.

What you are saying is that we see the universe as it was long ago and can't know what is happening to very distant objects now. We can speculate. IF the universe is expanding and IF it increased it's speed of expansion several billion years ago, then it will probably continue expanding forever.

Then again, maybe there is an unknown limiting factor to expansion and maybe the universe has rebounded from an imaginary rim and is now beginning to collapse. However, there is no way we can know about it since the light which would tell us this is tens of billions of (light) years away.

if the universe began to shrink at the speed of light some 12 billion years ago we would still be unaware of it as the light from the wavefront of such an event would still be travelling towards us. Whatever els is said, in view of this fact we cannot be sure what the universe is actually doing out there right now.

Suppose I start to stretch an elastic band very slowly and take reading evrey few seconds I could extrapolate that the expansion will continue forever quite reasonably, however, being elastic we know what will happen we have seen it before... snap. Now we have not seen what will happen to our universe we can only extrapolate the data we have so far and say it is expanding at a continuos/increasing rate. Can you prove to me beyond doubt that at this very moment the universe is still expanding? do you have an FTL link with the edge of the universe wherever that is at present?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

if the universe began to shrink at the speed of light some 12 billion years ago we would still be unaware of it as the light from the wavefront of such an event would still be travelling towards us. Whatever els is said, in view of this fact we cannot be sure what the universe is actually doing out there right now.

Suppose I start to stretch an elastic band very slowly and take reading evrey few seconds I could extrapolate that the expansion will continue forever quite reasonably, however, being elastic we know what will happen we have seen it before... snap. Now we have not seen what will happen to our universe we can only extrapolate the data we have so far and say it is expanding at a continuos/increasing rate. Can you prove to me beyond doubt that at this very moment the universe is still expanding? do you have an FTL link with the edge of the universe wherever that is at present?

Two problems with the elastic band analogy.

1. The expansion of the Universe is not driven by some outward pulling force on the "edges" that propagates inward.

A better example might be a hunk of metal being uniformly heated or uniformly cooled. As it warms, its expands, and as cooled it contracts. This way the expansion or contraction is uniformly felt.

2. You don't have to see the "edges" to tell the the hunk is contracting. You can look at the parts of it right next to you, As doing so is what tells you what it happening "now". Again. taking light propagation delay into account, looking at different parts of the hunk at different distances gives you a picture of what the hunk was doing at different times, from the far past to the present. If you want to know waht it is doing "now", you look nearby, not 15 Gly away.

If there was nothing but us and galaxies 15 Gly away, you might have a point, but there isn't, there are galaxies strewn at all intermediate distances also.

However you want to put it, you do not know what is happening at the edge of the universe you have only data of where it was 12 billion years or so ago.

I do not mean the univsere may be shrinking in terms of the balloon analogy (ie the opposite of universal expansion, obviously we may well be able to detect that from the behaviour of nearby galaxies, I am suggesting the possibility that the collapse boundary moves through space with galaxies dissappearing from the universe as the boundary passes.

To All

The evidence the BBT is based on has been refuted (Doppler RS) and replsced with the subjective 'expansion of space'.
So the BBT was created by the human mind.

That is why I refute the BBT because it is just an opinion.

The biggest evidence against this theory is that it is 'creation out of nothing'.

So it has as much credibility as the Old Testament.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

To All

The evidence the BBT is based on has been refuted (Doppler RS) and replsced with the subjective 'expansion of space'.
So the BBT was created by the human mind.

That is why I refute the BBT because it is just an opinion.

The biggest evidence against this theory is that it is 'creation out of nothing'.

So it has as much credibility as the Old Testament.

Cosmo

Show me a reptupable scientist who talks of creation from nothing?
As I undestand it, at the instant of the big bang, the laws of physics of our universe came into being, that includes laws relating to time and physical matter, thus you cannot say created from nothing or use expressions such as 'before the big bang' (though I acknowledge this does not appear in your post, typically the two are linked).

THe 'big bang' is an idea which many believe has supporting evidence ( I myself think the answer is far more exotic than this) thus you may choose not to support the notion.

Your final statement is more akin to what I might say 20 minutes after taking my medication.......

N.B.
I have a strong feeling that in space the more exotic the explanation the more probable the truth (formation of the moon, dark matter, hawking radiation, the big bang).

Originally Posted by Megabrain

However you want to put it, you do not know what is happening at the edge of the universe you have only data of where it was 12 billion years or so ago..

You are consistently missing the point. There is no edge to the universe and if there were we are at that edge just as much as a galaxy 5, 10 or 30 billion light years away. The effects of expansion, or contraction, are felt everywhere at the same time (relatively speaking :wink: ). Equally we can detect these effects 'locally'. We do not need to wait five or ten billion years for light to reach us 'from the edge' to know what is going on.

we are told the universe is expanding, that description uses words for which we all instinctiley understand.

IF the effects are felt everywhere then you suggest the immediate space around me and you and the planet is expanding, fine I can accept that, if I have to except that though remember the distance between earth and sun appears constant thus if space is expanding then the planets must be falling into the sun to keep the balance.

If this is not the case then the expansion is not local to us and therefore not local to anybody, thus there is a boundary where the expansion is 'adding' space to our universe. when we look through a telescope we can see 10 billion lightyears in any direction, within this space the galaxies are hurling apart and speeding up,
thus any data of expansion uses data (photons) that started their journey towards us 10 billion or so years ago. I am not interested in galaxies flying apart, that is NOT part of this discussion.


Now expansion is a relative term, if you say the universe is expanding then to be sure of this you must be able to state what that expansion is relative to. Please enlighten me.

Remember however unpaletable the following is, and however unable people are to grasp it, it is equally possible the the universe is a fixed size but all mass, and systems within it are shrinking proportionally thus creating the illusion of expansion.


Now we have all seen that pathetic analogy of the balloon, lets look a bit closer, a galaxy is printed on a deflated balloon and it's size is represented as 1% of the total diameter of the balloon now I inflate the ballon to 10 times it's deflated size only to find that the galaxy is still only 1% of the size. THe result is that no matter how many times or how large or small the balloon was the people living in such a galaxy would be unaware of their true size since their galactic measuring stick is made of from material from their own universe.

I am not convinced by CMBR that the whole big bang theory is 'it' I firmly believe the origin and behaviour of our universe is far more exotic than any of us could ever imagine.

CMBR is merely radiation received from all directions, there is actually no proof of when it originated, just as if you listen to a single radio channel you cannot tell from how far or when the transmission started.

As matter of interest the heliosphere is know to reflect some radiowaves back towards the centre of our system, if there is some mechanism out there generating small amounts of IR radiation it would come from every direction just as CMBR does, (I am not suggesting this is the cause of CMBR since I know it is not) thus there might be a galactic sphere way out side the galaxy.

As you will very well know there is NO test to determine how old a photon or electromanetic wave is.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I am not convinced by CMBR that the whole big bang theory is 'it' I firmly believe the origin and behaviour of our universe is far more exotic than any of us could ever imagine.

You are probably right, but in the absence of relevant observations or hypothesis, that is philosophy not science, so it doesn't belong here.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

As you will very well know there is NO test to determine how old a photon or electromanetic wave is.

You mean they don't al have date stamped serial numbers?

I am pretty sure that the consensus is that space is expanding everywhere, which would mean that the planets are in fact moving towards the sun relative to space as a result of the overpowering gravity. It is the same story with galactic clusters and super clusters as well, which is on a much larger scale. The thing is that on this scale it is still a small amount of expansion relative to the overall scale of expansion.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Show me a reptupable scientist who talks of creation from nothing?
As I undestand it, at the instant of the big bang, the laws of physics of our universe came into being, that includes laws relating to time and physical matter, thus you cannot say created from nothing or use expressions such as 'before the big bang' (though I acknowledge this does not appear in your post, typically the two are linked).

THe 'big bang' is an idea which many believe has supporting evidence ( I myself think the answer is far more exotic than this) thus you may choose not to support the notion.

Scientists do not want to contradict the authority or they may be ostricized just like Halton Arp, who was denied telescope time on the 200" Palamar telescope for doing research that made a liar out of the 'expansion of space' concept.
So now, he is in Germany with the Max Planck Institute promoting his work .

This is an example of 'power' science that is a throwback to the days of Galileo's
inquisition for promoting the Heliocentric concept after the Roman Church was teaching the Geocentric concept that has since been scrapped and discarded.

Also, there are complaints that research dollars are being denied to any scientists that are opposing the BBT.
There is an 'official' letter on the internet that has been signed by more than 2-3 hundred scientiss and other individuals that oppose this discrimination of these research dollars.

So, with this discrimination, it is obvious that the BBT is a religion since it is the religions that oppose freedom of consciense as a right under our Constitutional mandate.
Also, since the BBT has an age, that is proof that it had a beginning and therefore is a 'creation out of nothing' (time zero).

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Megabrain

When we say the the universe is expanding what we are really saying is that photo evidence reaching us today suggests that the universe is expanding however, this data is already some ten billion years old, thus is it not more accurate to say that 10 billion years ago the universe was expanding?

We hve no evidence of what is going on today, indeed if the universe was shrinking at the speed of light we simply would not know, we would see other galaxies and the sky 'as it was' right up until the point it shrank past the point where we are.

Lets say all the galaxies around us we CANT see are compressing together faster than the speed of light, it shure would give us the illusion that everything is "expanding" and that the universe has an "edge".

Originally Posted by yelram

Originally Posted by Megabrain

When we say the the universe is expanding what we are really saying is that photo evidence reaching us today suggests that the universe is expanding however, this data is already some ten billion years old, thus is it not more accurate to say that 10 billion years ago the universe was expanding?

We hve no evidence of what is going on today, indeed if the universe was shrinking at the speed of light we simply would not know, we would see other galaxies and the sky 'as it was' right up until the point it shrank past the point where we are.

Lets say all the galaxies around us we CANT see are compressing together faster than the speed of light, it shure would give us the illusion that everything is "expanding" and that the universe has an "edge".

There is no evidence of what you are saying.

The evidence is the Doppler redshift that the scientists have accepted for the Expansion of Space (EoS).

But they had to refute that because of the implications of a geocentric repeat that was refuted.
So a new science was born with the EoS. This is a subjective creation and not real science.

I supplied a replacement for the EoS and that is the 'expansion of the light waves
that has plenty of evidence for its substitution as the Cosmological Redshift.
Arps Redshift Anomaly is the most credible for this redshift.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by yelram

Originally Posted by Megabrain

When we say the the universe is expanding what we are really saying is that photo evidence reaching us today suggests that the universe is expanding however, this data is already some ten billion years old, thus is it not more accurate to say that 10 billion years ago the universe was expanding?

We hve no evidence of what is going on today, indeed if the universe was shrinking at the speed of light we simply would not know, we would see other galaxies and the sky 'as it was' right up until the point it shrank past the point where we are.

Lets say all the galaxies around us we CANT see are compressing together faster than the speed of light, it shure would give us the illusion that everything is "expanding" and that the universe has an "edge".

There is no evidence of what you are saying.

The evidence is the Doppler redshift that the scientists have accepted for the Expansion of Space (EoS).

But they had to refute that because of the implications of a geocentric repeat that was refuted.
So a new science was born with the EoS. This is a subjective creation and not real science.

I supplied a replacement for the EoS and that is the 'expansion of the light waves
that has plenty of evidence for its substitution as the Cosmological Redshift.
Arps Redshift Anomaly is the most credible for this redshift.

Cosmo

My position decribes the redshift directly. The universe itself isnt expanding, our observable chunk of it is. Its the cause of this expansion that is the question. You do not have to observe a phenomenon directly

As the universe continues on its current path, scientists believe that the universe will face this thing called the Big Rip in regards to the ultimate fate of this speeded-up expansion of the universe. The hypothesis is dependent on the amount of dark energy in the universe and the dark matter which with ordinary matter exert gravity on the universe which to contain it.

To put it simply, dark energy produces a kind of repulsive force that pushes everything away from everything. In the early years, dark matter and ordinary matter have been able to warp enough spacetime which to slow down the expansion, since matter is much more densely concentrated at those primitive times. Over time, as the universe continues to expand, dark energy eventually overpowered gravity and caused the expansion to speed up. To put it in terms of this world, as distances grow ever larger without the introduction of new matter into the universe, the amount of gravitational force per unit distance of the universe decreases.

As the inhibiting force of gravity decreases, eventually the force of gravity gets so weakened that it can no longer hold back the expansion of the universe. This causes the expansion of the universe to speed up.

As the speed of expansion continues, eventually the opposing force will be strong enough to rip apart the universe and end the world as we know it. About 60 million years before the end, gravity would be too weak to hold the Milky Way and other individual galaxies together. Approximately three months before the end, the Solar system will be gravitationally unbound. In the last minutes, stars and planets will be torn apart, and an instant before the end, atoms will be destroyed.

Originally Posted by yelram

My position decribes the redshift directly. The universe itself isnt expanding, our observable chunk of it is. Its the cause of this expansion that is the question. You do not have to observe a phenomenon directly

Then how do you explain the cause of the expansion without observation?

The Hubble observations have detected these redshifts and determined that the galaxies implied that they are moving away from us.
So thid led to the concept of the universe expanding but I explained above why this cannot be true.
Your position is that gravity is working backwards in expanding the galaxies away from us only.
T his is not physics.

Cosmo

Cyto

The Dark Energy does not exist. I wrote an article that refutes it.
I will restore it here on this thread.

Cosmo

It must get tiring tilting at so many windmills, eh Cosmo

One problem is that we cannot have ultimate proof that the universe is expanding since to see it doing so would take eons of time.

If dark energy wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be shown to exist so we know it is not just a convenience to explain a mistake with the cosmological redshift.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by yelram

My position decribes the redshift directly. The universe itself isnt expanding, our observable chunk of it is. Its the cause of this expansion that is the question. You do not have to observe a phenomenon directly

Then how do you explain the cause of the expansion without observation?

The Hubble observations have detected these redshifts and determined that the galaxies implied that they are moving away from us.
So thid led to the concept of the universe expanding but I explained above why this cannot be true.
Your position is that gravity is working backwards in expanding the galaxies away from us only.
T his is not physics.

Cosmo

The galaxies ARE moving away from us. Gravity isnt a force in and of itself, it is the response of matter to energy loss. Much like how a vacuum is induced after burning something.

Imagine if you were in the trough of a wave, and time was slowed down. Both compression points are pulling water from the rarefaction. If we put a wave of sound energy through any medium, the result is a waveform, with areas of compression and rarefaction. If we use sound specifically, the energy moves at the speed of sound, so the rarefaction contains energy moving away at the speed of sound. In the quantum fabric, things move the speed of light, and the rarefaction of it contains energy moving away at the speed of light, hence our inability to define the compression points, and the resulting asymtotal nature of the red shift phenomenon. It also explains the "dark matter" phenomenon. The dark matter was the matter that was pulled away and compressed, what we see is the resulting energy pulled in due to cosmic "cooling' in response to localized expansion, and condensation. Just like a warm cloud of vapor hitting a cool pane of glass. Droplets form, due to energy conservation. If we cooled the vapor super fast, and created snowflakes, we would see a whole higher level of heat retention complexity. I've never seen a study that compared it, but the R factor of snow is an order of magnitudes greater than that of ice. And the shapes are very convincing examples of complexity being built from heat loss.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Cyto

The Dark Energy does not exist. I wrote an article that refutes it.
I will restore it here on this thread.

Cosmo

I have restored the article here now below:

Dark Energy

It is being portrayed as a 'time dilation', rather than an added space expansion? Why the change?

Well, I saw an illustration of why this was done.

This research was based on observations of Supernova 1a magnitude wave patterns.
These explosions are based on the white dwarf stars that are presumed to exploide after accumulating some added mass equal to 1.44 solar masses.

They are being touted as the best 'long distance' candles even though they had large 'error' margins of 8 different measurements of determining the distance to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

Since WD's have different mass sizes and more importatly, have very large temperature variations that range from about 3000K to over one hundred thousand K, this seems to me why they have such large error margins.

So this 'time dilation' interpretation is derived from some magnitude wave patterns that appeared to be widened while the magnitudes were lower in magnitude relative to the distances.

So I came to the conclusion that this widening was the result of the SN1a's 'local'space motions of direction that created some of these widened wave patterns.
If the SN is movinng towards us or away from us, there would be no wave widening because the source would be standing fixed in location.
So this would be simply an observation of magnitude only.
But if the SN is moving laterally, then it would
require an additional lateral dimension incuded because the light is stretched laterally with the movement.
So the magnitude would be slightly reduced and the wave pattern would be spread by this motion to an elongation of the wave to create the illusion that time was extended.
So, IMO, dark energy does not exist.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by yelram

The galaxies ARE moving away from us. Gravity isnt a force in and of itself, it is the response of matter to energy loss. Much like how a vacuum is induced after burning something.

Imagine if you were in the trough of a wave, and time was slowed down. Both compression points are pulling water from the rarefaction. If we put a wave of sound energy through any medium, the result is a waveform, with areas of compression and rarefaction. If we use sound specifically, the energy moves at the speed of sound, so the rarefaction contains energy moving away at the speed of sound. In the quantum fabric, things move the speed of light, and the rarefaction of it contains energy moving away at the speed of light, hence our inability to define the compression points, and the resulting asymtotal nature of the red shift phenomenon. It also explains the "dark matter" phenomenon. The dark matter was the matter that was pulled away and compressed, what we see is the resulting energy pulled in due to cosmic "cooling' in response to localized expansion, and condensation. Just like a warm cloud of vapor hitting a cool pane of glass. Droplets form, due to energy conservation. If we cooled the vapor super fast, and created snowflakes, we would see a whole higher level of heat retention complexity. I've never seen a study that compared it, but the R factor of snow is an order of magnitudes greater than that of ice. And the shapes are very convincing examples of complexity being built from heat loss.

Your analogy is flawed and you have not provided any real sources for your opinions.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by yelram

The galaxies ARE moving away from us. Gravity isnt a force in and of itself, it is the response of matter to energy loss. Much like how a vacuum is induced after burning something.

Imagine if you were in the trough of a wave, and time was slowed down. Both compression points are pulling water from the rarefaction. If we put a wave of sound energy through any medium, the result is a waveform, with areas of compression and rarefaction. If we use sound specifically, the energy moves at the speed of sound, so the rarefaction contains energy moving away at the speed of sound. In the quantum fabric, things move the speed of light, and the rarefaction of it contains energy moving away at the speed of light, hence our inability to define the compression points, and the resulting asymtotal nature of the red shift phenomenon. It also explains the "dark matter" phenomenon. The dark matter was the matter that was pulled away and compressed, what we see is the resulting energy pulled in due to cosmic "cooling' in response to localized expansion, and condensation. Just like a warm cloud of vapor hitting a cool pane of glass. Droplets form, due to energy conservation. If we cooled the vapor super fast, and created snowflakes, we would see a whole higher level of heat retention complexity. I've never seen a study that compared it, but the R factor of snow is an order of magnitudes greater than that of ice. And the shapes are very convincing examples of complexity being built from heat loss.

Your analogy is flawed and you have not provided any real sources for your opinions.

Cosmo

And you havent explained WHY its flawed. I do not need sources for a theoretical opinion, if i'm wrong, its on you to PROVE it. The universe is cooling as a result of expansion, do you understand the concepts associated with expansion and the resulting cooling? I do, I work with them hands on every day in complex refrigerant circuits. Where heat is moved through expansion and compression of a thermostatically reactive medium. Gravity is NOT IN THE EM spectrum it is not a force in and of itself, it is the response of a medium to the LOSS OF ENERGY. My model explains every bit of "mysterious" unexplained phenomenon, from Dark matter,the growth and death of black holes and stars, to red shift to CMBR, to ARPS DISCORDANT RED SHIFT, and plasma cosmology. I'll show you sources that have come to similar conclusions as my self.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7167
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6993870.stm

Those two articles are touching on what i'm saying. The expansion causes cooling, this cooling changes plasma, and higher spectrum energies into matter, and what energy is left as the matter condenses, is burned off in fusion reactions. All of these reactions are the process of energy condensation. I believe it is quite possible that some regions of the Universe experience time as the exact opposite phenomenon, where energy isnt dissipated, but rather multiple forces combine into one.

yelram

So you cite your science on the principal of a refrigerator?

And those 2 websites you posted are as credible as the BBT.
The BBT is as credible as the Old Testament.
The OT says the universe is only 6 thousand years old. Ha ha.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

And those 2 websites you posted are as credible as the BBT.
The BBT is as credible as the Old Testament.
The OT says the universe is only 6 thousand years old. Ha ha.

Now now. Behave, please. Such a ridicule comparison is entirely unjustified. Both may be wrong, but the Bible is just a compendium of stories, while the BBT is a scientific theory backed up by observation and measurements. You might disagree in the interpretation, but it is still science.

By the way, this is far more than I have seen from you. I find it quite peculiar and unjust of you denying a theory that has scientific backing, while all that I have read from you are just handwaving arguments that you don't like it without actually presenting an alternative. So, show us, what you have worked out, then we can discuss, what is actually more convincing.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Now now. Behave, please. Such a ridicule comparison is entirely unjustified. Both may be wrong, but the Bible is just a compendium of stories, while the BBT is a scientific theory backed up by observation and measurements. You might disagree in the interpretation, but it is still science.

By the way, this is far more than I have seen from you. I find it quite peculiar and unjust of you denying a theory that has scientific backing, while all that I have read from you are just handwaving arguments that you don't like it without actually presenting an alternative. So, show us, what you have worked out, then we can discuss, what is actually more convincing.

Dish, see my new post on a Flat Space universe.

Cosmo