Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour

"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:32725cfd-1cfd-49d6-a781-1f4c0f06be59@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour

Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and
only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded in
all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic light
year, and without any other photon or graviton anywhere in sight. (aka
ideal faith-based mindset)

OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days.

No Faith involved view...
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series
of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble)

The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)

http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D0....
672098BE3984

http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/

What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way?
(1024r?)

Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal
grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously
worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously
if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our
grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna.
. – Brad Guth

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour

"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:32725cfd-1cfd-49d6-a781-1f4c0f06be59@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour

Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and
only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded in
all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic light
year, and without any other photon or graviton anywhere in sight. (aka
ideal faith-based mindset)

OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days.

No Faith involved view...
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series
of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble)

The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)

http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D0...
672098BE3984

http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/

What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way?
(1024r?)

Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal
grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously
worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously
if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our
grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna.
. – Brad Guth

http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

"The basic aspect of this writing is simple. We exist within the
Universe and are connected to every particle in the Universe and as
such any device we build, every piece of material we dig from the
ground, every thing we use to observer the universe is connected from
the observer to that which is being observed and attempted to be
modeled in such a way as for the observer to understand. Its this
position of us the observer that will never allow us to directly
observer or model the Causational aspect of the universe as we are in
the Box and as such cannot ever observer the Box." / Paul R. Mays

The problem here is that a box sequestered mindset does us little if
any good.

I too accept the BB and perceived expansion,

although not necessarily
via the singular BB, because God or whatever may have had multiple
stored farts to get rid of.

I think there are other universes out there, at least an opposite
dipole other version of our universe to behold, of which might greatly
if not entirely explain the required balance that the laws of physics
typically demands.
. - Brad Guth

"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d2c32534-d941-4c52-b4f4-82dd5b6ea657@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 5:19 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:



"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:32725cfd-1cfd-49d6-a781-1f4c0f06be59@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Mitch Raemsch Falling light changes colour

Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and
only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded in
all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic light
year, and without any other photon or graviton anywhere in sight. (aka
ideal faith-based mindset)

OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days.

No Faith involved view...
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series
of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble)

The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)

http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D0....
672098BE3984

http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/

What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way?
(1024r?)

Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal
grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously
worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously
if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our
grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna.
. –BradGuth
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
"The basic aspect of this writing is simple. We exist within the
Universe and are connected to every particle in the Universe and as
such any device we build, every piece of material we dig from the
ground, every thing we use to observer the universe is connected from
the observer to that which is being observed and attempted to be
modeled in such a way as for the observer to understand. Its this
position of us the observer that will never allow us to directly
observer or model the Causational aspect of the universe as we are in
the Box and as such cannot ever observer the Box." / Paul R. Mays
The problem here is that a box sequestered mindset does us little if
any good.

I see it a bit differently.. It does you no good if you do not
recognize your in a box. But if you recognize you May be in a
box, even though you cannot observe it you can Theorize the
construct of the box by the effect of the box on what you observe.
All I am suggesting is that we may very well be in a box and not
recognize it so we and any models we build of what we do know
May be Intrinsically Biased.

The Box analogy only goes a little of the way as being inside the
universe and connected via the Quantum State the Box, so to speak,
is in Us and around us and an integral part of us, what we observe
and any device we attempt to use to observe.

I too accept the BB and perceived expansion,

I very well know my postulate is considered out of left field
to most but if you except the construct of a BB then if you
look closely you will not that the postulate gives logical explanation
for not only expansion by inflation and that the expansion rate will
increase as it expands, explains a different mind set on the basic
nature of observable matter that contends that existing physical
laws remain intact, All this while giving a very simple structure with
an elegant design that would self organize.

although not necessarily
via the singular BB, because God or whatever may have had multiple
stored farts to get rid of.

Again no need for gods and farts in the postulate it follows energy/matter
conversion that was the basic concept of Einstein's E=mc^2

I think there are other universes out there, at least an opposite
dipole other version of our universe to behold, of which might greatly
if not entirely explain the required balance that the laws of physics
typically demands.
. -BradGuth

I point to the Intrinsic Bias concept, using it there is no balance required
as all laws can be simple EM wave interactions across a connected
quantum state and matter can be understood as a Primal Particle that
produces a EM wave through the connected inverse tensor of the QS.

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. - Brad Guth

On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:





On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that
announcement?

Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not
sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less
than nothing.

If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy,
thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the
nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other
universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever
expansion possible.

However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in
another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part
of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 28, 8:00 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that
announcement?

Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not
sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less
than nothing.

If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy,
thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the
nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other
universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever
expansion possible.

However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in
another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part
of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The original expansion of infinitely small dimensions of the
hypersphere is inflation.
Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel laureate 2008

On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:





On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that
announcement?

Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not
sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less
than nothing.

If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy,
thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the
nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other
universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever
expansion possible.

However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in
another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part
of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 28, 8:00 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that
announcement?

Stephen Hawking is making an announcement.



Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not
sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less
than nothing.

If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy,
thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the
nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other
universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever
expansion possible.

However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in
another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part
of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 29, 2:47 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:





On Apr 28, 8:00 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 2:55 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 28, 1:30 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 12, 2:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:

Atronomers observe the most distant objects to be 13 billion light
years away. The universe had to expand first to get those objects out
to that distance. I call it distance motion of spatial expansion. Then
we have to wait for light to traverse expanding space on its way back.
Because space is growing it is going to take longer.

Expansion is imaginary.

That makes big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy guilty by
association.

Then perhaps it's just us shrinking ???

It seems that at least once upon a time there was as least one BB, if
not many.

It equally seems deductive enough, to consider that external to our
Universe there's less than one atom/ly3.

So, why wouldn't or shouldn't cosmic stuff expand?
. -BradGuth

The beginning of the Big Bang was inflation.

Mitch Reamsch

OK, is there something special or trick worthy about that
announcement?

Stephen Hawking is making an announcement.

Obviously, even a very little bang represents inflation, however not
sustained unless it's expanding by way of being sucked out into less
than nothing.

If all of the original SMBH of all matter is converted into energy,
thus expanding or rather radiating as pure energy out into the
nothingness at the velocity of 'c', inflating into where only other
universes coexist, perhaps only then can we consider a forever
expansion possible.

However, even if you discover the holy grail of "space expansion", in
another couple thousand years (if the human species is still any part
of Earth), it isn't going to matter either way.
. -BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This year?
. - BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -