A Really Big Bang?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
can we not estimate what the rate of change of curvature currently is, by trying to determine the rate of contraction (if any) of the galaxies and see if it predicts an event horizon of 10 billion light years.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I'm assuming here that there's negligble velocity component; it's all gravitational red-shifting. To put some numbers on it, we need the landscape to be stretched by one lightyear per year. If the event horizon is 10 billion light years away, then we require a stretching of space by 1 part in 10 billion. With all these quasars and "black holes" out there, that shouldn't be too difficult. Or is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
can we not estimate what the rate of change of curvature currently is, by trying to determine the rate of contraction (if any) of the galaxies and see if it predicts an event horizon of 10 billion light years.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I'm assuming here that there's negligble velocity component; it's all gravitational red-shifting. To put some numbers on it, we need the landscape to be stretched by one lightyear per year. If the event horizon is 10 billion light years away, then we require a stretching of space by 1 part in 10 billion. With all these quasars and "black holes" out there, that shouldn't be too difficult. Or is it?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Are you having an argument with yourself? LOL


What about new space/time measuring units, in which the universe has constant size? (that we define as the lenght unit, which conforms the overall expansion of space).

Then the time units changes too in new space/time measuring units.

When you calculate this through, you'll see that in the new unit system, there was no big bang.

I think I'm in over my head. I'm not familiar with the "new unit system". Can you give me a link? (Sorry, I just joined this week)
Re: Am I having a converation with myself. Yes, for about 3 years now. So it's a great relief to join MetaResearch.
I'm confused. Units that are defined to be relative to size of the universe seems to imply that the size of the universe is finite. I don't get it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I think I'm in over my head. I'm not familiar with the "new unit system". Can you give me a link? (Sorry, I just joined this week)
Re: Am I having a converation with myself. Yes, for about 3 years now. So it's a great relief to join MetaResearch.
I'm confused. Units that are defined to be relative to size of the universe seems to imply that the size of the universe is finite. I don't get it.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

nope. just that the units are increasing in size proportional to the space expansion.... which effectively removes the expansion of space altogether (when measured in the new length units).

OK. I'm sort of with you. So lets take a star sitting on our event horizon 10 Bil yr away. I say next year it's gonna be 10 Bil and 1. You're saying it will still be 10. But we're both assuming the red-shift is caused entirely by an increasing gravitational gradient that's stretching space (as opposed to rececessional velocity or whatever). The fact that there IS an event horizon tells me that space is expanding in our local region. If space was contracting, things would be blue-shifted and we could see much further. By making the units proportional to the expansion aren't you just hiding what's really going on?

[/quote]

nope. just that the units are increasing in size proportional to the space expansion.... which effectively removes the expansion of space altogether (when measured in the new length units).

heusdens

i do not find this above statement true.

don't forget the math or measurement is based on observation,not observation is based on math.

if you place math or measurement first you will miss the truth of the observation.