Could redshift be wrong?

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.&nbsp; An exhaust manifold <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/5/ec10b6af-93d0-431b-9523-0be3b501a17f.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you have been repeatedly told the modern theory of cosmology does not start with the Big Bang.&nbsp; It starts with NOW.&nbsp; And NOW we see that the universe is expanding. </DIV></p><p>Translation:&nbsp; I can't get the singularity to "expand' without inflation and/or DE, so I'm going skip the tough questions.</p><p>On the other hand, the exhast maniford comment was pretty darn funny. &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One then takes that knowledge that the universe is expanding and uses general relativity, ala Hawking and Ellis, to logically and rigorously conclude that the universe originated in an extraordinarily compact form </DIV></p><p>Yes, but Alfven's big bang model had did not require such a compact form.&nbsp; You're choice of compactness and density is an utterly subjective "interpretation" of movement, even if you accept the principle of expansion as Alfven did.&nbsp; See, I can namedrop too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The general theory of relativity actually predicts a origin from a single point, a singularity.</DIV></p><p>Then why didn't Alfven's model "predict" that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This may well be a&nbsp;breakdown in the general theory of relativity.</DIV></p><p>Or it's a highly subjective choice on your part that is unrelated to the theory of relativity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We know that in&nbsp;a very compact state that quantum phenomena would be important and we know that general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics. </DIV></p><p>We also know that your singularity is going nowhere without inflaton and/or dark energy, so who's kidding whom?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus we know that WE DON"T KNOW what was going on prior to about 10^-33 seconds.</DIV></p><p>You wrote off Alfven's BE theory?&nbsp; Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our knowledge of physics is simply inadequate to handle the problem as it stands at the moment.</DIV></p><p>Any sort of speculation about the origins or the eternal nature of the universe are bound to be subjective, particularly when applied to a timeframe of billions of years. Our knowledge of physics can only tell us what emprically exists in nature. </p><p>I'm head out the door at the moment, and I'll look to see if I missed anything important in the rest of your post when I get back.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[Hicup]

<p>Keep going guys, this was fun to read, although, I'm not sure we're any closer than where we were in the OP? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I really do think you all seem to be talking past each other on this.&nbsp; Conceding, points for the sake of momentum, can lead to affirmations later on.&nbsp; I suggest trying it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As far as red-shift goes.&nbsp; I think the OP is a valid question in contemporary science.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Tim-</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at:  http://www.thespaceport.us  Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand, the exhast mani<strong><em>ford</em></strong> comment was pretty darn funny. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>[emphasis mine]&nbsp;</p><p>A little freudian slip there?&nbsp; Do you happen to own a ford? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Keep going guys, this was fun to read, although, I'm not sure we're any closer than where we were in the OP? &nbsp;I really do think you all seem to be talking past each other on this.&nbsp; Conceding, points for the sake of momentum, can lead to affirmations later on.&nbsp; I suggest trying it.&nbsp;As far as red-shift goes.&nbsp; I think the OP is a valid question in contemporary science.&nbsp;Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>Can't let you have all the fun debating politics in freespace...&nbsp; Things can get a little rambunctious up north here, too.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Hicup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can't let you have all the fun debating politics in freespace...&nbsp; Things can get a little rambunctious up north here, too.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In another forum I am arguing something that has the same goal, and that is of questionning the CMB, or not so much the exitence of it, but maybe it's not what we think it is.&nbsp; Redshift is also questionable in my opinion.&nbsp; The cooling rate of the CMB is important and in the other forum, we're trying to account for the rapid nature of the cooling.&nbsp; Assuming that we are seeing the CMB as it was 4.5 billion or so years ago; AND, assuming that the universe is roughly 13.9 billion years old; AND, assuming that at one time the universe was very, very hot, the cooling to an average of 2.725 Kelvin doesn't seem to gel with the amount of time invloved.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at:  http://www.thespaceport.us  Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

 

[Hicup]

<p>Instead hyper inflation, why not hyper deflation?&nbsp; Galaxies would still be moving away from each other, as momentum dictates, but it&nbsp;is entirely possible, logically, that the universe cooled very rapidly and not uniformly from its original state.&nbsp; In fact, is cooling any more or less uniform than heating up; if both states reach an ultimate goal of equillibrium insodoing?&nbsp; The black body would deliver the same results either way.&nbsp; We think the CMB is cooling, thus expanding, but it might not be cooling, we haven't measured an increease or decrease in average temp over the last 20 years.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This assumes that the&nbsp;BB and initial expansion,&nbsp;was not prone to the speed limit of the universe as we observe it.&nbsp; Faster than light is not so difficult to imagine in this context, since, light, for all its worth was not even present.&nbsp; This lends support to GR in that, the laws are not violated.&nbsp; If the mass is dense enough, very dense, and I mean, very; then it is possible to imagine that the speed of particles can exceed the current speed limit, provided the density of the singularity is massive enough.&nbsp; The speed at which light travels in the instant case, our case, is a product of, not a dictator to the rules governing the BB, IMO.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Tim-</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at:  http://www.thespaceport.us  Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;In another forum I am arguing something that has the same goal, and that is of questionning the CMB, or not so much the exitence of it, but maybe it's not what we think it is.&nbsp; Redshift is also questionable in my opinion.&nbsp; The cooling rate of the CMB is important and in the other forum, we're trying to account for the rapid nature of the cooling.&nbsp; Assuming that we are seeing the CMB as it was 4.5 billion or so years ago; AND, assuming that the universe is roughly 13.9 billion years old; AND, assuming that at one time the universe was very, very hot, the cooling to an average of 2.725 Kelvin doesn't seem to gel with the amount of time invloved.&nbsp;&nbsp;Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>The universe is thought to be 13.7 gy old and the CMB is only about 300k years younger.&nbsp; Essentially, we are looking at radiation that is 13.7 gy old.&nbsp; Not sure where you get the 4.5 gy from.&nbsp; The photons are are nearly as old as the universe and we see them as that old and they only started out at some 3000 Kelvin which is not really that hot.&nbsp; Plenty of time to cool.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Instead hyper inflation, why not hyper deflation?&nbsp; Galaxies would still be moving away from each other, as momentum dictates, but it&nbsp;is entirely possible, logically, that the universe cooled very rapidly and not uniformly from its original state.&nbsp; In fact, is cooling any more or less uniform than heating up; if both states reach an ultimate goal of equillibrium insodoing?&nbsp; The black body would deliver the same results either way.&nbsp; We think the CMB is cooling, thus expanding, but it might not be cooling, we haven't measured an increease or decrease in average temp over the last 20 years.</DIV></p><p>If you accept that the universe is expanding, then the CMB has to be cooling.&nbsp; I can't think of a way around this.&nbsp; If the universe didn't cool down uniformally, I don't think it would be possible for it to be nearly as homogenous as we observe today.&nbsp; You're breaking some fundamental laws here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This assumes that the&nbsp;BB and initial expansion,&nbsp;was not prone to the speed limit of the universe as we observe it.&nbsp; Faster than light is not so difficult to imagine in this context, since, light, for all its worth was not even present.&nbsp; This lends support to GR in that, the laws are not violated.&nbsp; If the mass is dense enough, very dense, and I mean, very; then it is possible to imagine that the speed of particles can exceed the current speed limit, provided the density of the singularity is massive enough.&nbsp; The speed at which light travels in the instant case, our case, is a product of, not a dictator to the rules governing the BB, IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp;Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>No clue what you are saying here.&nbsp; Just because light is not present doesn't mean the speed constant for massless particles goes away.&nbsp; Technically, C doesn't necessary have to mean the speed of light.&nbsp; C is really nothing more than a constant at which a massless particle travels.&nbsp; A particle without mass is always travelling at C.</p><p>I'm not sure I understand your correlation to C and density.&nbsp; I don't see how particles can travel in a singularity no matter how massive it is.&nbsp; By definition, a singularity has has zero volume... there's nowhere to travel to.&nbsp; Discussion of what is happening at the singularity level is an undertaking we are not yet equpped for.&nbsp; It's not something we can currently understand with our level of physics.&nbsp;</p><p>You're welcome to speculate until your heart is content, but you won't solve anything at that level until you create some new physics.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Hicup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The universe is thought to be 13.7 gy old and the CMB is only about 300k years younger.&nbsp; Essentially, we are looking at radiation that is 13.7 gy old.&nbsp; Not sure where you get the 4.5 gy from.&nbsp; The photons are are nearly as old as the universe and we see them as that old and they only started out at some 3000 Kelvin which is not really that hot.&nbsp; Plenty of time to cool.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wait, isn't the Sun 4.5 Billion years old?&nbsp; If so, then "we", are&nbsp;4.5b years&nbsp;younger than the sun.&nbsp; If anything we are observing the CMB as it was 9.2B years ago.&nbsp; That temp&nbsp;is 2.725 Kelvin, no?&nbsp; That leaves 4.5b years of cooling we haven't observed yet.&nbsp; We might be looking at radiation that is 13.7 billion years old, but we're looking at only the temperature of what it was 9.2 billion years old.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Tim-<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at:  http://www.thespaceport.us  Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Wait, isn't the Sun 4.5 Billion years old?&nbsp; If so, then "we", are&nbsp;4.5b years&nbsp;younger than the sun.&nbsp; If anything we are observing the CMB as it was 9.2B years ago.&nbsp; That temp&nbsp;is 2.725 Kelvin, no?&nbsp; That leaves 4.5b years of cooling we haven't observed yet.&nbsp; We might be looking at radiation that is 13.7 billion years old, but we're looking at only the temperature of what it was 9.2 billion years old.&nbsp;&nbsp;Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>Huh?&nbsp; Yes, the sun is about 4.5 gy old, but how are we 4.5 gy younger than the sun?&nbsp; Earth evolved pretty much parallel to the sun.&nbsp; I think the Earth is about 4.2 gy old.&nbsp;</p><p>What would our age have to do with it?&nbsp; If the photons were emitted 13.7 gy ago, they are 13.7 gy old.&nbsp; They don't stop aging waiting for us to appear.</p><p>I'm not following your logic here. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I'm going to be busy the next couple days... I'll try to respond when and if I'm around.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The universe is thought to be 13.7 gy old and the CMB is only about 300k years younger.&nbsp; Essentially, we are looking at radiation that is 13.7 gy old.&nbsp; Not sure where you get the 4.5 gy from.&nbsp; The photons are are nearly as old as the universe and we see them as that old and they only started out at some 3000 Kelvin which is not really that hot.&nbsp; Plenty of time to cool.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't think time is the governing parameter.&nbsp; These photons have been flying around ever since they were born, not hitting anything.&nbsp; So they have an energy (aka temperature) that can change only if the frequency changes.&nbsp; And how does frequency change -- red shift.&nbsp; So the question of temperature is really a question of red shift and hence of expansion, not time per se.&nbsp; Time comes in only because the expansion of the universe takes place over time and because red shift is related to recessional velocity and velocity involves a time rate of change.</p><p>But it is not like a heat transfer problem where heat is redistributed over time to some cooler location.&nbsp; We are talking about the universe on a large scale here, there is no somplace else for the heat to go. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think time is the governing parameter.&nbsp; These photons have been flying around ever since they were born, not hitting anything.&nbsp; So they have an energy (aka temperature) that can change only if the frequency changes.&nbsp; And how does frequency change -- red shift.&nbsp; So the question of temperature is really a question of red shift and hence of expansion, not time per se.&nbsp; Time comes in only because the expansion of the universe takes place over time and because red shift is related to recessional velocity and velocity involves a time rate of change.But it is not like a heat transfer problem where heat is redistributed over time to some cooler location.&nbsp; We are talking about the universe on a large scale here, there is no somplace else for the heat to go. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Good catch.&nbsp; I was in a hurry to go to bed, but didn't want to leave Hicup hanging, so my posts were abbreviated and not very descriptive.</p><p>I can see how that particular post could be quite misleading.&nbsp; In particular, the last line. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Hicup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good catch.&nbsp; I was in a hurry to go to bed, but didn't want to leave Hicup hanging, so my posts were abbreviated and not very descriptive.I can see how that particular post could be quite misleading.&nbsp; In particular, the last line. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Nice of you to think of me.. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well, as it turns out I was confused last night.. That's what 8 beers and some banned substances will do to an otherwise brilliant mind.. LOL&nbsp; Sorry, couldn't resist.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anyway, I'm in the middle of disk two of the John Adams series and must finsih watching this but I can tell you that in the other forum I post at, I ahve answered you already, as others have raised objections similar to yours, and the good Dr. Rocket.&nbsp; I'll post them later..</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Really just some observations..</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Tim-</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Hicup mostly hang out at:  http://www.thespaceport.us  Come and check it out, if you dare!!! </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Keep going guys, this was fun to read, although, I'm not sure we're any closer than where we were in the OP? &nbsp;I really do think you all seem to be talking past each other on this.&nbsp; Conceding, points for the sake of momentum, can lead to affirmations later on.&nbsp; I suggest trying it.</DIV></p><p>Oh, I quite agree with you on this point which is why I attempted to concede part of his point and reframe my question in terms of the change from a single gravity well that contains all mass (special relativity) - to comoving coordinate system (full GR theory). &nbsp;&nbsp; My hope was that he would see that without inflation or DE to overcome the force of gravity, that singlularity theory isn't going anywhere.&nbsp; Local "fluxuations" would be squished like a bug by the crushing force of gravity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[emphasis mine]&nbsp;A little freudian slip there?&nbsp; Do you happen to own a ford? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Fortunately for the Ford Motor company, no, I don't happen to own a Ford and it had everything to do with my lack of typing and editing skills, not any problem with their product. &nbsp; Sorry about that FMC.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think time is the governing parameter.&nbsp; These photons have been flying around ever since they were born, not hitting anything. </DIV></p><p>FYI, this seems to be the specific assumption that is most often questioned in tired light theories.&nbsp; In other words there tends to be an assumptions in tired light theories that photons are running into and interacting with physical things like electrons and protons and and other forms of matter thet they interact with over time and distance. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> These websites typically have a long list of "banned" individuals that all share a common tendency.&nbsp; They all tend to be effective "critics' of the status quo.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>and are members of the flat earth society and other firnge groups </p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, I quite agree with you on this point which is why I attempted to concede part of his point and reframe my question in terms of the change from a single gravity well that contains all mass (special relativity) - to comoving coordinate system (full GR theory). &nbsp;&nbsp; My hope was that he would see that without inflation or DE to overcome the force of gravity, that singlularity theory isn't going anywhere.&nbsp; Local "fluxuations" would be squished like a bug by the crushing force of gravity. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What in the world does a "single gravity well that contains all the mass" have to do with Special Relativity?&nbsp; </p><p>And what is 'full' GR?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;What in the world does a "single gravity well that contains all the mass" have to do with Special Relativity?&nbsp; And what is 'full' GR?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Oh... and I'm still looking forward to some type of rebuttal or concession to my 2nd to last post on page 5 (sorry I can't link it).&nbsp; We can't have a logical discussion on GR and it's relation to cosmology and astrophysics if one of us is not understanding what GR is.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh... and I'm still looking forward to some type of rebuttal or concession to my 2nd to last post on page 5 (sorry I can't link it).&nbsp; We can't have a logical discussion on GR and it's relation to cosmology and astrophysics if one of us is not understanding what GR is.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I finally realized from your previous post that there isn't really any reason for us to discuss what GR "is" or "is not" until you explain how you got from that single gravity well (special relativity) to a comoving coordinate system *without* inflation and/or DE.&nbsp; Once you do that, then we can revisit GR if you like, but first you'll have to explain how you got to GR from a single gravity well, where all physical matter of the universe was concentrated to something smaller than a breadbox and bound in the same gravitational well.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I finally realized from your previous post that there isn't really any reason for us to discuss what GR "is" or "is not" until you explain how you got from that single gravity well (special relativity) to a comoving coordinate system *without* inflation and/or DE.&nbsp; Once you do that, then we can revisit GR if you like, but first you'll have to explain how you got to GR from a single gravity well, where all physical matter of the universe was concentrated to something smaller than a breadbox and bound in the same gravitational well.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Nice try with the diversionary tactics.&nbsp; As I stated in a previous post, this discussion can only continue if you address my dissection of your statements concerning GR.</p><p>You added to your illogical statements with a previous post that you have repeated with the post quoted above.&nbsp; </p><p>I ask, once again... What the heck does a single gravity well have to do with Special Relativity and what is "full" GR?&nbsp;</p><p>Like I said previously... we can't have a discussion about redshift and it's relation to to GR when one of us doesn't understand what GR is.&nbsp; </p><p>Obviously, one of us is wrong and it isn't me. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I finally realized from your previous post that there isn't really any reason for us to discuss what GR "is" or "is not" until you explain how you got from that single gravity well (special relativity) to a comoving coordinate system *without* inflation and/or DE.&nbsp; Once you do that, then we can revisit GR if you like, but first you'll have to explain how you got to GR from a single gravity well, where all physical matter of the universe was concentrated to something smaller than a breadbox and bound in the same gravitational well.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Translation:&nbsp; "I have no clue whatever what GR is all about, so I will try to redirect the conversation."</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/7/070456ca-450c-4363-b731-5e73adb26db6.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Translation:&nbsp; "I have no clue whatever what GR is all about, so I will try to redirect the conversation." <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Notice the timestamp on our last 2 posts.&nbsp; A little bit of simultaneity (pun intended) on the recognition of the attempted redirection.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>