0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.
In this article they claim that this velocity is due to the expansion rate (in order to justify the BBT believer).However, they also give the REAL explanation how this observation overcomes the relativity:
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:04:34I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.Because a contradiction in an expectation does not necessarily equal a falsification of a theory, that's why.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:04:34I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity
The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.
Well, in engineering there is no room for contradiction.Once you see and verify a contradiction, you set the theory in the garbage.So, it is clear that astronomy and engineering works quite differently.
I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.
What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
Thanks you allI really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.
Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?
Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?
Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?
Why do we keep feeding the troll?
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?yesWhat we see is the red shift of galaxies
QuoteWhat kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?All the relevant observations support the idea-.
What we see is the red shift of galaxiesWhat the clever people deduce from that is that the galaxies are moving.what the very clever people deduce is that , because the apparent velocity exceeds C, it must be space itself that is expanding.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08The other option is Galaxy over galaxy....which violates relativity.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
In a static, unchanging space, the average angular diameter of galaxies should always fall off the same way with distance. A galaxy that is twice as far away will look twice as small. If space is expanding, however, this trend does not continue indefinitely. Instead, there will be a point where more distant galaxies will start to look larger (because the expansion of space will cause their images to enlarge). There is a graph with data on this page (the one that says "Luminosity Distance") that shows that this expansion of angular diameter is indeed what we see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4925877ecb5f
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?
As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.
Thanks KryptidThis article is very interesting.It is stated:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#4c714ee9cb5f"The farther away we look, beyond a specific critical distance, objects actually appear larger the farther away they get. Even without gravitational lensing, the expanding Universe alone makes ultra-distant galaxies appear larger to our eyes."However the expanding Universe is dedicated by Hubble law.Please remember that based on Hubble law, we actually observe the redshift/expansion of the galaxies and not the space itself.That Hubble law is the base for the expansion of galaxies in Theory D.Therefore, as long as the expansion of galaxies in theory D meets Hubble law, the farther away Galaxies should be Magnified and appear larger to our eyes.
If they see an elephant, than it is an elephant and not an Ant.If they see a moving car, than this car is moving.If they see a moving galaxy, than this galaxy is moving.
And if they see a moving ship...They don't actually know if the engine is running- because it could be driven by tide, current, or wind.However, if they see a ship moving faster than the engine can drive it, they know that it must also have a following wind or it is running with the current.Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
First simple question.Do you think that relativity is right (i.e. you can't go faster than C), or do you think that all the measurements and tests done on it somehow failed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light"According to the current scientific theories, matter is required to travel at slower-than-light (also subluminal or STL) speed with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region. "So, they specifically claim - with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region.
Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.
Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.
Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple ideaRelativity works locally!!!!
I read again the following article:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/07/ask-ethan-do-ancient-galaxies-get-magnified-by-the-expanding-universe/#461f31b5cb5fNot even a single word about space expansion.
Thanks for your great example.It is all about Knowledge.If you know that a ship or boat could carry a turbo jet engine boosted by rocket power, than you should know that it could lift itself over the water and fly at almost the speed of sound.