0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.Which way does the ship move?OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.Do you understand how that can happen?
Thanks for all your efforts so far.
I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.
However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
Quote from: Kryptid on 04/05/2020 20:23:05I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.Thanks KryptidI do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.Why not using the word - "disappointed"?You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.So, let's make it clear:What do we really see?Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?
What do we really see?Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:08:35Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.Which way does the ship move?OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.Do you understand how that can happen?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/05/2020 09:03:58Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:08:35Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.Which way does the ship move?OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.Do you understand how that can happen?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:37:17Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?Red shiftNow it's your turn.Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.(The real one, not the strawman one you usually go on about).
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:37:17Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?
There are several contradictionsLet me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPGFit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.They have selected Ho = 68 km/s MpcTherefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/sHowever, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.This constant is vital for Hubble's law:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_lawHubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.However, that law was the base for the BBT:Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.No more "Puzzled" scientists!Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.
Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.
So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today
If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!
There are several contradictions
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:06:32Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see todayTheory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations, it does not agree with relativity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:06:32Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today
our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/."As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/05/2020 09:17:38Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/05/2020 09:03:58Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/05/2020 18:08:35Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.Which way does the ship move?OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.Do you understand how that can happen?
Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?
Those idea are none naturals.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.Actually, could it be that I miss something?Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.