Re: Isn't this better described as 'aether'?

"Paul R. Mays" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Snipped heading (We know who we are)
> 
> >
> > [EL]
> > Hi Paul,
> > You are very welcome to discuss anything you wish with me. :)
> > I happen to be fond of people who have the courage to say NO.
> >
> > EL
> 
> OK...  Here goes..  But first I'll see if we are starting from
> a common knowledge base...
> 
> And ask for latitude due to my primary field being electrical
> engineering and not physics so my verbiage may at times require
> clarification...  So question any aspect or usage....
> 
> So...  I follow the premise that there was indeed a BB at some
> point in the past.. date of which is still in question....
> 
> (side note: there's a TV show on about the guy that takes
>    pictures of groups of naked people and there's lots of
>    naked women pointing dark round points at me so I'm
>    distracted)
> 
> While I suck at math I do consider it a valued and generally
> correct tool to describe the observed universe but it is limited
> in its ability to mathematically model reality by the knowledge
> base of the mathematicians...  And that any mathematical model
> is only a description of observable reality and is not the reality
> itself...   ( that may need clarification even to me)
> 
> I think that matter and energy are convertible one into the other...
> 
> I think man know far less about the universe around him than he
> knows he knows...
> 
> And I really do understand the standard model on a general level
> including GR,SR,QM,String and know quite well  the theories
> of the micro and macro regions...  not the detailed mathematical
> details but the overview consideration that each paper on the subject
> speaks of..    Most of the standard positions I agree with some
> I question .....
> 
> So for the sake of the discussion lets see if we start with
> some base line construct of a BB universe that had an
> inflationary period followed by a long expansion period
> ,which we are still in today...
> 
> Which begs the question of the Singularity or better the Nature
> of the singularity....  And that's where my postulate starts so
> lets see where you can tear apart that stuff before I give you
> the postulate to fry......
> 
> 
> Paul



[EL]
Very well then, I should inform you beforehand that you are up to a
bitter battle with me. :)
A biter battle may be abbreviated as BB, which is the same
abbreviation of what caused the battle.  :)

First of all, if there was nothing there to begin with, then how could
anything be big or small and compared to what?

So, buzz words aside, some dreamer arrived at a hype of theses that
since it is assumed that the finite universe is expanding into the
infinite nothingness then back engineering it implies that it could be
shrunk over negative time until there is nothing but a point.

That statement was a very complex and overloaded pile of garbage and
reckless semantics.

Firstly, there is no absolute emptiness anywhere.

Secondly, the universe includes infinity and is infinite.

Thirdly, I do not agree with Dr. Einstein that the universe is finite
and unbounded; I have confidence that the universe is infinite and
bounded by that infinity.

Fourthly, I do not agree that the visible part of the universe is
expanding in the sense that the galactic centres are moving apart, but
rather that the galaxies are shrinking and the space in between the
galaxies also is shrinking at a less rate such that we perceive an
increase in the distance between galactic surfaces where the light
that reaches us originate.

Fifthly, it is absurd nonsense to postulate that all the matter of the
universe was concentrated in a dimensionless point at nowhere or
anywhere because such a probability is equally infinite. This means
that if a singularity was possible then a plurality is much more
probable founded on the same basis. I also do not endorse central
processing of nature as a pathetic projection of the human central
nervous system. I have confidence that all natural phenomena are
parallel spatially and sequential temporally because that is the
logical foundation of our visual sense and our auditory sense.

Therefore there was never such a silly explosion of nothingness.

However, there are an infinite number of supernovae triggered by
matter-energy density crossing a critical threshold after a very long
temporal interval of gravitational compression. Each of those
semi-parallel explosions are part of cycles in which cosmic gas
condense and disperse like a heartbeat or the breathing of the cosmos.

Yet even more, the universe is not radially oriented like a sphere,
but rather like a vortex that swirls while breathing in and out.

So I am all against the fallacy of singularities and big bangs as well
as a black-hole that is a name that was looking for a phenomenon. This
set of crazy fantasy that originated from General Relativity
interpretations is the cause of this dark age of physics.

EL