"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

nightbat wrote

EL wrote:

T Wake wrote:
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]
Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.

I am sorry, I seem to have missed the start of this and for some reason my
news server hasn't got them available for me to look at. For this reason I
am sorry if I am mis-apointing comments or opinions.

However, am I right in thinking that some one is getting confused over the
balloon analogy for the expansion of the universe. The analogy is based on
the surface of the balloon showing a two dimensional representation of three
dimensional space. There is no centre to the balloon unless you add in a
third dimension which renders the analogy obsolete.

The balloon is not a proper model of the universe, it is simply a method for
clarifying the way space expands without large scale structures needing to
move - and it indicates that the expansion of space is in all directions
simultaneously.

Once again, I am sorry if I have totally got the wrong end of the stick
here.
[EL]
Not at all, you are absolutely correct with your explanation.
The issue is whether such an explanation is anywhere realistically
satisfactory or can be regarded as sophisticated nincompoop that has no
physical relevance whatsoever.
I am quite certain that you are conveying the textbook's nincompoop
quite honestly, and you get the credits of being knowledgeable and
honest, but no one can blame you for conveying what was authentically
fabricated as the most ridiculous model that has no resemblance to any
logical scenario.
Those who authored that model deny space to exist without matter, while
severely falling into a contradiction assuming that that nonexistent
space is centre-less and expanding, thus pushing the 2D membrane
outwards.

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

EL

nightbat

Well the senses are meant to be stimulated see Officer Oc for
more deeper theoretical applied out of this Universe theory
preponderance. Don't like that one see nightbat profound " Black Comet
" for internal gravitational loop resolution.

ponder on,
the nightbat