Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

no big deal. Even when you can read me, you usually don't get it...

On the one side of [H] the Universe 'is expanding' in one direction (according to the calculations), and on the opposite side of observation the Universe 'is expanding' in the opposite direction. How does that happen?

O.K., suppose the Universe is really expanding - how do the different types of matter (vacuum, rocks, gases, etc.) succeed to expand at one and the same rate and nothing is cracking and collapsing. Do you know what will happen when you replace the reinforcing iron of the concrete with a duraluminium alloy, for example - the bridge will collapse from the first rays of the sun.

Do you have the point - the place of birth of the Big Bang? What evidence do you have about that expansion? Do you have a direction of the telescope where:
X.Y..Z...[H]....A.....B......C........
If you don't have any such direction, this automatically will mean that Hubble is into the center of expansion and into the center of the Universe respectively, and you will not be able to explain for life how does that happen ... unless you confess that nothing is expanding and that the red shift might be everything else but Doppler effect and expansion of the Universe.

I suppose it's proper I use little fonts then, if I make little sense...

That doesn't even make any sense.

Since it's the origin of space-time itself, this is a meaningless question.

Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered?

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

Any ol' direction will do.

Why are you guys yelling so much all the time?

Olivier5 wrote:

Why are you guys yelling so much all the time?

... It is obvious - because they have nothing to tell - neither to show any convincing evidence, nor to state any plausible and justified inference.

You insist on making this same stupid claim over and over.

Red shift is not seen only in the center.

The distance from X to Z is expanding so X would see redshift when viewing Z.

Z would see the same redshift when viewing X. Neither are in the center.

If the distance gets larger over time

... then there is redshift.

Go do the car, wagon, ball experiment.

I do not know the answers to the questions being dealt with here

And I do not think you can offer anything with greater substance to this discussion than that.

FBM wrote:

Since it's the origin of space-time itself, this is a meaningless question.

     No, it is not. The inability to find the origin of Space & Time means that you have no theory. It may be presented as a theory, but it is not.

FBM wrote:

Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered?

     No, you haven't answered to that: How much is the rate of expansion (in cu.m per sec) and the acceleration of the expansion is (in cu.m per sq. sec) - which are the numbers?

FBM wrote:

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

     O.K. say it:
The rate of expansion of the Universe in all directions is equal to ***.** cubic meters per second, and the acceleration is ****.** cubic meters per square seconds (of course you can use cubic kilometers/megameters/gigameters/terameters, etc. ... so far you have any calculations at all, of which I sincerely doubt).

FBM wrote:

Any ol' direction will do.

     You cannot model the space with 'any direction that will do' - otherwise the Universe would not be expanding at all, but will rather shake in some waves. The balloon that you showed is not expanding in any direction - it is distending from the stereometric center to the periphery, where the points along the periphery are growing faster than the points near the center - which gives the rise to the following question: do you have any evidence that the hydrogen atoms, for example, from the periphery of the Universe are bigger than the hydrogen atoms measured near the telescope?

Anyone who claims to be bothered or annoyed by the use of "bold"...or who claims its use is "yelling" (despite being assured it is not intended that way)...probably should not indulge in Internet debate. That kind of person almost certainly is not up to the job.

Since "all caps" seem to be the conventional mode of "yelling" on the Internet (and "caps" are a needed type face function)...why do you suppose there is a "bold type face" function available?

I doubt it. No one but someone being petty like you are being would consider that yelling...which I suspect is the reason you went to caps and color.

Anyway...yes, the word "obnoxious" does have certain behavior associated with it, FBM. I would respectfully suggest that "pretending great indignation with the use of bold type face" is one of those behaviors.[/b]

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know the answers to the questions being dealt with here

     This is obvious from the boldface.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I do not think you can offer anything with greater substance to this discussion than that.

     Why are you taking place in the discussion if you 'don't think'. The people that are not thinking are watching TV ... with subtitles ... in boldface.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyone who claims to be bothered or annoyed by the use of "bold"...or who claims its use is "yelling" (despite being assured it is not intended that way)...probably should not indulge in Internet debate. That kind of person almost certainly is not up to the job.

Anyone who ignores a dozen people telling him the same thing, viz, that bolding everything is the internet equivalent to yelling, is certainly too self-absorbed to be allowed to use a keyboard.

Quote:

Since "all caps" seem to be the conventional mode of "yelling" on the Internet (and "caps" are a needed type face function)...why do you suppose there is a "bold type face" function available?

It's for emphasis, and if you emphasize everything, it's the equivalent of yelling everything.

Quote:

I doubt it. No one but someone being petty like you are being would consider that yelling...which I suspect is the reason you went to caps and color.

You've been told over and over again by more people than me that bolding is equivalent to yelling; no one but someone being self-absorbed and stubborn like you would consider it otherwise. I recommend you adapt to the environment you've chosen.

Quote:

Anyway...yes, the word "obnoxious" does have certain behavior associated with it, FBM. I would respectfully suggest that "pretending great indignation with the use of bold type face" is one of those behaviors.[/b]

That said, congratulations. You've made it to the short list of yellers who are on my Ignore list. I held out as long as I could, seeing as how I generally agree with and respect your position on non-belief, but as I've pointed out before, I don't put up with being yelled at in person, I don't see any reason to do so online. Adios.[/size]

If [H] is not into the center of expansion there must be places in the Universe where the expansion should look like slowing down (rather than accelerating) when the [H] is accelerating from the points nearby at a greater speed.

You cannot compare the red shifts with the results from the calculations on the basis of the red shifts - you have to get some non-correlated data for the verification.

X to Z should be expanding much slower than A to C - actually pro rate the distance, but you have no other means to measure that distances, except by RFs and light.

In this example exactly X is the center of the expansion, but just don't ask me how will you establish it from the empirical data.

It is very interesting to quote the Newton's laws, especially in connection with a theory that is denying the laws of thermodynamics.