oriel36 wrote:
You are very 'special' people at least those who traffic in relativity
and other such exotic junk.

Actually, I disagree in part with all the theories.
I think the universe is finite and unbounded and
even though expanding at the present time, will
eventually collapse on itself into a Big Crunch.
I believe the expansion is mostly an illusion that
goes undetected because of relativity and dark
energy-matter effects.

Good luck to you and your 'warped space' colleagues.

How do you explain a gravitational lens without
space being warped by a galaxy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

I think the universe is finite and unbounded and
even though expanding at the present time, will
eventually collapse on itself into a Big Crunch.
I believe the expansion is mostly an illusion that
goes undetected because of relativity and dark
energy-matter effects.

I've heard that believing in undetected phenomena can be a wonderful
way to pass the time. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I've heard that believing in undetected phenomena can be a wonderful way
to pass the time. :-)

Could have made a hero out of someone who predicted
RF waves before they were detected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Oct 9, 10:28 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
You are very 'special' people at least those who traffic in relativity
and other such exotic junk.

Actually, I disagree in part with all the theories.
I think the universe is finite and unbounded and
even though expanding at the present time, will
eventually collapse on itself into a Big Crunch.
I believe the expansion is mostly an illusion that
goes undetected because of relativity and dark
energy-matter effects.

Good luck to you and your 'warped space' colleagues.

How do you explain a gravitational lens without
space being warped by a galaxy?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

To borrow from Galileo again -

SALV. "The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I
have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not so
much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be
withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of
the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that
some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of
their having received it from some person who has their entire
confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever
to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed
idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no
matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant
acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward
against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with
disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them ill. Beside
themselves with passion, some of them would not be backward even about
scheming to suppress and silence their adversaries. I have had some
experience of this myself."
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

It is many years now since I dealt with relativity or rather the
people who are proponents and opponents of that exotic
junk,occasionally I will join a thread but even then only as a cameo
appearance.When I looked at Albert's explanation for 'warping space'
based on the lament that light leaving stars was going to waste I
thought it was hilarious and still do but nothing could have prepared
me for his rejection of the idea of stellar islands -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html


In 1925 ,five years after he wrote that conclusion,these things
showed up -

http://web.mit.edu/kayla/Public/Back...%20Galaxy.jpeg

Look,I have no axe to grind and if you wish to believe the cobblers of
the last century then fair play to you,two thumbs up and whatever
other accolade I can throw in your direction,I find the whole thing
funny but that is just me.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I've heard that believing in undetected phenomena can be a wonderful
way to pass the time. :-)


Could have made a hero out of someone who predicted
RF waves before they were detected.

Usually just makes for good fantasy writers.

ac6xg

oriel36 wrote:
To borrow from Galileo again -

Think we have learned anything since Galileo?
Have you ever read, "Flatland"?

Look,I have no axe to grind and if you wish to believe the cobblers of
the last century ...

I said in my last posting that I don't accept any
of the popular theories. IMO, every theory of the
universe that I have ever read is wrong in certain
areas. I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run. I am not aware of any popular
theory that explains that (apparent) contradiction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Usually just makes for good fantasy writers.

Ever see the Star Trek episode about the the
starship that was traveling at 99% of the speed
of light between solar systems during the time
that warp-6 drive was invented and their great-
great-grand-children were waiting for them when
they arrived? :-) Or was that a Robert A. Heinlein
Novel?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run.

Perhaps. But I'll bet you don't know how it does it. :-)

ac6xg

On Oct 10, 8:06 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
To borrow from Galileo again -

Think we have learned anything since Galileo?
Have you ever read, "Flatland"?


I have read that wonderful sci-fi novel from the 19th century -

"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

So,you believe in a 1905 relativistic concept whoes conclusions match
those which could be found in any sci-fi bookshelf in 1898 !.I suppose
you cannot make the correlation between the dates of 1898 and 1905 but
then again,no person should need to.

So Cecil,go enjoy the epilogue of Well's fictional 'Time Machine'
novel,close the book and don't go believing in the flatlanders of
Albert except as an uproarious formal extension of the narrative -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html

Maybe you would like to base geology on Verne's 'Journey To The
Center Of The Earth' but I think you at least know by now where I
stand and I leave you to your own devices.














Look,I have no axe to grind and if you wish to believe the cobblers of
the last century ...

I said in my last posting that I don't accept any
of the popular theories. IMO, every theory of the
universe that I have ever read is wrong in certain
areas. I know why an ever-expanding universe collapses
on itself in the long run. I am not aware of any popular
theory that explains that (apparent) contradiction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps. But I'll bet you don't know how it does it. :-)

It wouldn't surprise me if the "how" was
time flowing backwards - you wake up a
day younger than you were yesterday. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com