0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
I have to ask for apology from all of you.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.
QuoteDo you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.No.
moving faster than the seed of light?
In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?
I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.
Why do you keep asking the same question when you know that you will ignore the answer?The answer is still no, the galaxies are not moving faster than light, just like the article states.The part that you quoted always says galaxies "appear to be moving faster than light". The article say 'appear', because they are not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying along the galaxies.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:08I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.This is a perfect example of why explanations are lost on you. Most anyone could see what Bored Chemist was trying to say with his ship analogy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:08I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space.
Yes, your explanation was very clear to meHowever, I have also found the following article about this issue:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/#3f837e2772a2there's a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift. When we examine the sophisticated details of this relationship, we can unequivocally conclude that the "motion" explanation fails to match the data.
Actually, our scientists could estimate in 1917 (long before the BBT) that apparent recession of the far end galaxies will exceed the speed of light.
No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.
If you actually knew what "space-time coordinates" meant, you would realize your statement is meaningless because all objects are already at different space-time coordinates (except, perhaps, quantum objects because they don't have a well-defined location)..
Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates
I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.
I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!
Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light, but this isn't due to an actual superluminal motion, but rather to the fact that space itself is expanding, which causes the light from distant objects to redshift.
You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.
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:"when we're talking about being limited by the speed of light, we're implicitly making an assumption that most of us don't realize: we're talking about an object moving relative to another one at the same event in spacetime, meaning they're at the same spatial location at the same moment in time. If you have two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored."
That is a pop science article
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:24:01I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.Guess what, your highlight is totally wrong.It was thought that the expansion was slowing down, but that still meant that the recession velocity increases with the distance to a galaxy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:24:01I have already highlighted that in the early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that based on the BBT and gravity impact, the far away galaxies should slow down.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 09/05/2020 11:24:01Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinatesAnother demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.
I wonder why our scientists didn't set the BBT at the garbage in 1990 when the have discovered contradictions in the expectations.
Sorry, you can't keep the recession of the far end galaxies only at the BBT pocket with or without the different space-time coordinates
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.