From:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/22/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

"This sounds like it breaks Einstein's theories, but it doesn't. The galaxies themselves aren't actually moving very quickly through space, it's the space itself which is expanding away, and the galaxy is being carried along with it. As long as the galaxy doesn't try to move quickly through space, no physical laws are broken."

This guy's theory explains how the "expansion" doesn't "break Einstein's theories," however, if space itself is expanding, there would be no red shift, because everything in "space" would be expanding too.

The Hubble "expanding universe" and the Big Bang are self-contradictory. Pure fantasy.

Your logic is the bizarre thing.

If light is a ripple moving through space, and the space is stretched, the ripple would be stretched from the motion.

:P

Now consider that all the space between electrons is stretched too, along with the space between electrons and the nucleus. Everything gets stretched if Space Expands. Even "photons." So you would never know if it did, or not.

The Big Bang Cult first proposed that it was only the space between galaxies that expanded. That didn't work (Clusters of galaxies are found in deep space that are clustered with distances about the same as close by clusters) so now the theory is that space itself is expanding. It doesn't work either.

Sorry, Find a new religion.

It isn't a Religion, it is an Observation.


My model is not the same as the normal Big Bang model.


Essentially I envision a wad (THERE is the correct use of the term you mistakenly apply to my concept) of folded 3 Dimensional threads of space.

Then the wad unfurls and unravels. The direction of this unraveling gives the arrow of time.


As for space not expanding within molecules.


Time for a thought experiment!

Imagine a wool blanket.

Twist and fold two knots into it.


Grab the knots.

Rip the blanket apart.


Did the bits in your hands tear apart, or did the yarn between them give first?


Gee, I wonder what I could be implying there?


Curt: Max, you really should read up on the dynamic interaction of wool, your metaphor is faulty because of some absurd thing I chose to jump on rather than simply run the description through my head and try to understand why you would describe space-time like that.

I'll need my blanket.

So you can rip space apart? What happens then? Do you fall in?

Let's meet some where, I'll but you a drink. I think you are thirsty.

What happens when you rip space apart?

A heat death, entropy reaches maximum.

New universes unfurl, one huge life cycle on scales we can barely comprehend.


or...


Something something, plasma theories seem like a cool thing right now, something something, unproven claims, something something, lack of ties to reality.

Max™ said: "Something something, plasma theories seem like a cool thing right now, something something, unproven claims, something something, lack of ties to reality."

Plasma experiments in the laboratory demonstrate the same actions observed on a much larger scale in space. Sorry you have to live in the dark ages, I see the light. It's the Big Bang that has no ties to reality.

I've considered your precious plasma models, do you not understand that?


They play a part, they aren't a complete explanation of the Universe though.


I've been at this for 20 years now, Curt, I'm kind of up to date on all of the models which have ANY viability.


Yes, the large scale effects of EM are not properly modeled.

No, they are not as effective as the electric universe theory assumes, and they do not properly explain the universe we observe.


Mixing the electric universe model WITH the big bang models, however, DOES produce a Universe which looks like home.


What you claim is the light, is just a glimmer through a window leading into a library, go pick up a book and then you can claim to have seen the light.

So you have seen how it is scalable. You have seen how the very pictures of the formation of "gases" in space match the plasma formations produced in the laboratory, only an a much larger scale. You've seen the Rickerites between galaxies and between stars.

You don't have proper respect. Mixing the electric universe with the Big Bang model may preserve your religion, but it mixes up reality.

Please stop talking about it as religion, your plasma model is no more science than my model is currently.

My model is NOT the big bang model, it is something I have developed entirely on my own from a clean sheet.

Yes, it looks nice, unfortunately it doesn't actually work well enough, otherwise there would be a lot more than a few crackpots here and there swearing by it.


There is no grand conspiracy to preserve some preferred model as you suspect, if your cherished model isn't accepted, it isn't because it is threatening to some religiously respected construct.

It is probably just because it is wrong, or unproven, or unprovable.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


Here, to be fair, I'll even score myself.


1. A -5 point starting credit.

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

^This one is actually well known, QM is misguided, but it is traditionally accepted as ok, even though Feynman himself called it "drawing arrows on pieces of paper" and "a dippy process."

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

^See QM.

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein

^I believe I could have talked with Einstein about this on equal terms, not as a mathematician, but as a philosopher scientist.

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

^Well, if I'm right, and you can produce quantum effects from a simple relativistic model, I damn well better get one. :D

Ok, so I'm at 45 Points on the Crackpot Index.

How about you? How about your plasma model creators?

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.

37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

That's what I can recall from the Plasma physics page, would you like to correct that, as you're more recently acquainted with it. (I assume you've also paid money for whichever thing it is that he doesn't release for free, there was a lot of fluff, but I had to go secondhand to find actual info on the theory)

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080512sombrero.htm

Steve Smith explains the conventional astronomical theory first, then explains the electric universe theory, regarding the Sombrero Galaxy.

You like you complicated theory, I like the simple electrical theory.

Shave with Ocam.

My theory is simple, it reduces EVERYTHING to the interaction of two fundamental aspects, Space, and Time.

I defy you to simplify a description of our universe further than "Everything is space-time interacting with itself."

Re: Max, Bizarre reasoning: October 15 2008, 2:54 AM

Max,
”My theory is simple, it reduces EVERYTHING to the interaction of two fundamental aspects, Space, and Time.

I defy you to simplify a description of our universe further than "Everything is space-time interacting with itself."”

Any theory can be reduced to that simplicity Max, it is the “interaction” that needs to be simplified. Gravity does not satisfy a simplified space-time without add-ons (mystical forces) while an electromagnetic universe is self extrapolating, what happens at the micro level has been shown to happen at the macro level. Reduction to simplicity is easy, however, it is extrapolation with simplicity that is the goal. An electric universe needs no (mystical forces) to account for the extrapolation of its force, the gravity of your space-time does. Gravity is a weak force, electromagnetic force is not.

bob s

EM is just a directional interaction of space-time.

Gravity is a more generalized area effect interaction.


The fact that you think I'm invoking mystical forces scares me, are you really that disconnected from reality?


The only difference between Gravity and EM is the difference between twisting a sheet, and tying a knot in a sheet.


Simplicity, my man.


You think I'm trying to describe a forest made of trees.


I'm trying to tell you the roots are all interconnected, and the forest is all the same tree.

You have chosen a very weak hero, Electric and magnetic forces far overpower it.

The high magnification available today reveals gigantic plasma webs coursing through out the universe, and within all the Galaxies. Astronomers won't acknowledge their presence. So they will be lost in the dust.

You're describing different aspects of what I've already realized to be the same force.

You speak as if I'm talking because I just prefer the model you wrongly think I use.

I speak from understanding the universe on as deep and intuitive a level as I ever have.

Re: Max, Bizarre reasoning: October 16 2008, 4:58 AM

Max,
"I speak from understanding the universe on as deep and intuitive a level as I ever have."

As do we you pompous Ass!

You know Max™ is a lot like me, very thin skinned. Hey, we can dish out the abuse, but we can't take it from others.

Max™, some of the Plasma Physicists are thinking that gravity is another aspect of the electromagnetic force. Nevertheless, gravity is too wimpy a force to produce all the activity to which conventional astronomy endows it.

Gravity seems to be a part of matter, because the only time gravitational acceleration is present, so is matter. It seems to be a surface quality because that is where the acceleration is highest. The deeply buried matter seems to give its acceleration to the matter towards the surface, ignoring the inverse square law. How do you explain this?

I explain it simply, that matter is a part of spacetime.


All of the effects of all the forces arise naturally from that assumption, seriously.


You clearly aren't speaking from a deep intuitive level of understanding if you don't even grasp very basic theories about the universe, no offense, but you haven't backed up your claims.


I, on the other hand, have.

Well, wash your hands and put the seat down, Max!

three squares per wipe, three times should do it. Conservation of the trees, remember?

Yeh, and October 17 2008, 11:15 PM

Curt,
"three squares per wipe, three times should do it. Conservation of the trees, remember?"

At time like those conserving trees is the last thing on my mind.

bob s

brings to mind the difference between the Starship Enterprise, and toilet paper.