Some cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters is actual but is overcome by gravitational attraction and other forces. According to their theory, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:

"Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion." https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/28/most-things-dont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/

Other cosmologists teach the opposite. Expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters is actual but is overcome by gravitational attraction and other forces:

Dr. Becky: https://youtu.be/IEtPy0o8i0M?t=348

"Neil Degrasse Tyson on is Earth expanding with the universe?" https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87

Clearly, there is no viable theory of expansion. Cosmologists just fool the gullible world and eat taxpayers' money.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Am 13.04.2023 um 01:13 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
....
>
> "Neil Degrasse Tyson on is Earth expanding with the universe?" https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87
>
> Clearly, there is no viable theory of expansion. Cosmologists just fool the gullible world and eat taxpayers' money.
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
I have spent about ten years upon 'Growing Earth theory' and I'm totally
convinced, that the Earth is actually growing.

There is also a book available which stems from Ott-Christoph Hilgenberg:

"Vom wachsenden Erdball", Berlin, 1930.

(As far as I know, there exists no english translation, but possibly
Google can help).

Hilgenberg was actually the inventor of Growing Earth theory. He was a
geologist at the university of Charlottenburg and had the idea to extend
the theory of Wegener (called 'plate tectonics').

Now there are a lot of hints, that GE is actually correct.

One (main!) reason: subduction does not work.

Another reason is the geometry of a spherical shell, which sits on top
of a large semi-molten ball.

Now we take a large 'knife' and cut that shell (Earth crust) into
pieces, while maintaining the shell itself as complete cover of that
semi-molten ball.

Now we grab a plate with a continent and push it somewhere.

But we cannot move any plate, because the ball is entirely covered with
plates and all the other plates hinder a movement.

We could, however, lift one of these plates and push the neighbor
underneath.

Even if this scenario is highly unlikely on planet Earth, we cannot move
plates neither.

The reason is, that plates need to slip sideways past the left and right
neigbours, too. But because plates are very heavy and extremely thick
and large, they apply sideways pressure upon the neighbors (and of
course to the ground below).

This would cause enormous friction and we have no force to overcome this.

Another problem would be the form of plates, because plates don't look
like made for sliding along each other. Actually their form is full of
'hooks' and curves, which would hinder movement.

But there are TONS of other reasons, why plates cannot slide around on a
planet with constant size.

And if subduction does not work, we need to assume, that planets
actually grow, too.

TH

On 2023-04-13 06:30:28 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 13.04.2023 um 01:13 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> ...
>>
>> "Neil Degrasse Tyson on is Earth expanding with the universe?"
>> https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87
>>
>> Clearly, there is no viable theory of expansion. Cosmologists just fool
>> the gullible world and eat taxpayers' money.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>
> I have spent about ten years upon 'Growing Earth theory' and I'm
> totally convinced, that the Earth is actually growing.

Just as convinced as you are that you have found 500 errors in
Einstein's paper?
>

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Why are some cosmologists forced to claim that there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, not even one overcome and masked by gravity and other forces? Because, if they admit that expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, they will also have to admit that the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it assumes that intragalactic expansion is actual, will have to predict distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have decided to apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Nothing new. Theoretical physics has been a dishonest ideology since 1905:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Am 13.04.2023 um 09:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-04-13 06:30:28 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 13.04.2023 um 01:13 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Neil Degrasse Tyson on is Earth expanding with the universe?"
>>> https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no viable theory of expansion. Cosmologists just
>>> fool the gullible world and eat taxpayers' money.
>>>
>>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>>
>> I have spent about ten years upon 'Growing Earth theory' and I'm
>> totally convinced, that the Earth is actually growing.
>
> Just as convinced as you are that you have found 500 errors in
> Einstein's paper?

Well, no. In fact the number of errors was much smaller.

With 'Growing Earth' I had dealt, because I needed an empirical proof,
that matter can be created out of nothing.

This was needed to disprove a certain paradigme of quantum mechanics
called 'Standard model' (aka 'particle concept').

I needed such a proof, because I wanted to make my alternative concept
called 'structured spacetime' more plausible.
(see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

Therefore, I have spent countless hours with Google Earth, looking for
evidence.

I have also participated in Neal Adams' mail list group for a while.

Anyhow, I have spent a lot of time on that particular subject and am now
totally convinced, that planets do in fact grow.

Now there are VERY serious problems for mainstream physicists, if they
reject growing Earth, if that is actually correct.

TH

Am 14.04.2023 um 08:23 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 13.04.2023 um 09:30 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-04-13 06:30:28 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 13.04.2023 um 01:13 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Degrasse Tyson on is Earth expanding with the universe?"
>>>> https://youtu.be/M6S2kyS2VT4?t=87
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, there is no viable theory of expansion. Cosmologists just
>>>> fool the gullible world and eat taxpayers' money.
>>>>
>>>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>>>
>>> I have spent about ten years upon 'Growing Earth theory' and I'm
>>> totally convinced, that the Earth is actually growing.
>>
>> Just as convinced as you are that you have found 500 errors in
>> Einstein's paper?
>
>
> Well, no. In fact the number of errors was much smaller.
>
>
> With 'Growing Earth' I had dealt, because I needed an empirical proof,
> that matter can be created out of nothing.
>
> This was needed to disprove a certain paradigme of quantum mechanics
> called 'Standard model' (aka 'particle concept').
>
>
> I needed such a proof, because I wanted to make my alternative concept
> called 'structured spacetime' more plausible.
> (see here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
> )
>
> Therefore, I have spent countless hours with Google Earth, looking for
> evidence.
>
> I have also participated in Neal Adams' mail list group for a while.
>
> Anyhow, I have spent a lot of time on that particular subject and am now
> totally convinced, that planets do in fact grow.
>
> Now there are VERY serious problems for mainstream physicists, if they
> reject growing Earth, if that is actually correct.

The problem with 'Growing Earth' is mainly, that it directly contradicts
a certain paradigme called 'materialism'.

But if this foundation of almost every single theory in many sciences
had to go, than large sections of academic sciences would fall into ruins.

So, there is good reason to reject this theory.

But nature is as nature is and that is independent of our wishes and
demands.

Therefore, science is oblidged to find valid descriptions of nature,
because invalid theories cannot help mankind in any way.

TH

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Why are some cosmologists forced to claim that there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, not even one overcome and masked by gravity and other forces? Because, if they admit that expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, they will also have to admit that the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it assumes that intragalactic expansion is actual, will have to predict distortions.
>
> But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have decided to apply the expansion theory only to gravity-free space. Nothing new. Theoretical physics has been a dishonest ideology since 1905:
>
> "This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
>
> Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
The expanding universe is alleged to explain the red-shift distance relationship that is observed within galaxies and galactic clusters.