what if (on colliding galaxies)

On Aug 9, 9:52 am, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

So in other words, the best you can say is "I don't know". Nevertheless,
given your past hypothesizing, you'll find wiggle room in the unknown to
believe whatever you want to, and present it as fact.

In the realm of any good SF novel there's loads of facts as based upon
the regular laws of physics and best available science of that era.

Sorry if my deductive way of constructively thinking is getting in the
way of your mainstream status quo unthinking.

There's lots (most) of this universe and that of our solar system I
don't know squat about, but at least unlike yourself, I'm honestly
trying to figure it out.

If you could find it within your black heart to contribute something/
anything on a positive/constructive manner, as such it would be
greatly appreciated.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 9, 10:20*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 9, 8:28 am, oldcoot wrote:

BG sed :

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. *I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. *Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

From the mouths of babes huh? *:-)

Don't get your status quo panties in such a bunch, because it's just
an idea that shouldn't be forever mainstream banished or otherwise
avoided like the plague.

Uh, dude. Read it again. I was `affirming` what you sed.

On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Timberwoof
wrote, addressing Painius:

Did you actually *read* Carl
Sagan's books on the topic?

Ho ho. Surely you jest, newcomer. Painius has long been the biggest
devotee, disciple and advocate of Sagan imaginable.

On Aug 9, 9:51*am, Timberwoof
wrote:

*"Painius" wrote:
I think it's ludicrous to draw the conclusion that the
Universe is expanding based upon light that has taken
billions of years to reach our eyes. *Nobody can say for
certain what those objects that were 10 billion light
years away 10 billion years ago are doing right now,
this moment. *We look out and see expansion, but for
all we know, at this point in time, 10 billion years later,
the Universe has already entered a different phase of
development. *Contraction? *Stability and "stagnation"?
Nobody can really tell.

Why not? Since the light from things farther away came from longer ago,
it's clear that we're seeing objects as they were then. Next, an
examination of galaxies over time shows clear progressions in change of
shape. *Ell else being equal*, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that
things continue on as they have. Sure, you have to redefine "as they
have" as you get new evidence, but any other conclusion is a flight of
fancy.

You propose some different phase of development. What does that mean,
exactly? You suggested contraction or stability as possible
alternatives. Has it ever occurred to you that others besides you have
also considered those possibilities? Did you actually *read* Carl
Sagan's books on the topic?

This problem has been discussed here frequently over the years. "Ever
accelerating expansion" is the current interpretation of the 1a
supernova data, ie., the most distant SN1a appearing 'dimmer than they
should be' at a given redshift.. which came about in the mid-1990s
with the advent of the Hubble Deep Field observations. "Ever-
accelerating expansion" became dogma virtually overnight.
But here's the problem - given, accelerating expansion
was occuring the deepest observable past, but where is evidence that
accelerating expansion is occuring *now*, in present time, in local
space? ('Local' in this context refers to space out to a radius of a
billion LY or so.) IF accelerating expansion is occuring here and now,
then _there's gotta be evidence in the form of excess redshifts in
'local' space_ between structures not gravitationally bound. But
there's no evidence that they're receding from one another at an
accelerating rate. There's no predominating redshift over and above
the normal Hubble Constant. So by all appearances, "ever-accelerating
expansion in present time" is an article of pure faith.
Not many replies were forthcoming, but the few
responders said (paraphrasing), well, lack of local redshifting
doesn't really mean anything because of the size scales involved.
But it still boils down to "acceleration in present
time" being a belief not supported by evidence but passed off as
scientific fact.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Aug 9, 9:51 am, Timberwoof
wrote, addressing Painius:

Did you actually *read* Carl
Sagan's books on the topic?

Ho ho. Surely you jest, newcomer. Painius has long been the biggest
devotee, disciple and advocate of Sagan imaginable.

Thank you, oc! I'm tempted to do a rerun of my
"Dedicated to Carl Sagan" series of threads. Don't
mind Timberwookie too much. He just likes to give
an argument.

One thing he wrote puzzles me, though...

". . . it's perfectly reasonable to expect that things
continue on as they have. . . ."

I see no logic in it, none at all.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

"BradGuth" wrote in message...
...

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Thank you, Brad!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Aug 9, 11:24 am, oldcoot wrote:
On Aug 9, 10:20 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Aug 9, 8:28 am, oldcoot wrote:

BG sed :

I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

But everything is in orbit around something, right!

Possibly our universe is in orbit around the intercosmic point of
nullification, or that of some other mega black hole (aka God).

From the mouths of babes huh? :-)

Don't get your status quo panties in such a bunch, because it's just
an idea that shouldn't be forever mainstream banished or otherwise
avoided like the plague.

Uh, dude. Read it again. I was `affirming` what you sed.

I sort of figured as much. Sorry that my lose cannon is so trigger
happy.

Question: How much of a volumetric vacuum was created at the core of
our universe by the supposed singular BB? (1e-100 bar?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 9, 4:31 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...

...



I've never bought into the expansion only theory. I therefore agree
with the intent of what you have to offer. Our universe may in fact
already be contracting, as it'll be at least 10 billions of years
before we'll ever know if the physical expansion is slowing down.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Thank you, Brad!

You're quite welcome. Perhaps there's more we can agree upon.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Timberhead Further out we see the redder and redder it gets. That is
the evidence used to show that galaxies are moving away from each other
faster and faster. Hubble gave us this valuable information. He was a
very great astronomer,and a nice guy Bert

On Aug 10, 4:03 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Timberhead Further out we see the redder and redder it gets. That is
the evidence used to show that galaxies are moving away from each other
faster and faster. Hubble gave us this valuable information. He was a
very great astronomer,and a nice guy Bert

But there's so much cosmic dust getting in the way (not to mention
dark energy, dark matter and BHs of antimatter plus loads of pesky
graviton distortions), whereas it's like we're looking through layers
of those deeply rose colored glasses.

How about gamma-red-shift?

Shouldn't we be using pulsar gamma shift logic analogy?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth