0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because distance is also relative. Ever heard of length contraction?
The distances between those different objects for any given moment of time is going to differ between reference frames
1. We look at a picture of a small boy standing at the front while the biggest elephant in the planet is somewhere in the background. We can see that in this photo the Boy is relatively bigger than the elephant.So, does it mean that the boy is bigger than this elephant?
Therefore, there are 1000 segments where in each segment the distance is increasing by 0.9c T.
However, I must say that it is very difficult for me to accept that idea that also in this case the real distance between the two ends of this raw (with 1000 segments in between) is increasing at the maximum by only c(almost) * T .
The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through space, so that's all it can increase by.
When you say "space" do you mean the entire space - even if it is infinite?
Is there any possibility to claim that?
"The speed of light is the upper limit to movement through "any local space"?
However, nothing around any point can move faster than the speed of light up to the maximal distance (let's call it P1) in this graph.
Now, do you agree that if we jump to that P1 (or n times P1), we should see a very similar linear graph?
Now, do you agree that if we jump to that P1 (or n times P1), we should see a very similar linear graph?So, why can't we understand that at any point (up to the infinity) all the galaxies there should move at low velocity with reference to each other (local space), however, due to the linearity at some far away space (or different space time) the velocity with reference to our location should be higher than c?
Because that violates special relativity. No two objects can move relative to each other through space faster than light.
However, suddenly at the Virgo cluster (15MPC) we clearly observe severe dispersion in the velocities.Do you have any idea for the source of this dispersion in the velocities?
You are, once again, confusing moving through space faster than light with receding faster than light due to spatial expansion. The first one violates special relativity, whereas the second one does not. They are not the same thing.
1. Why can't we ask about the time before the bang? Why do we need to start from that point?
- Matter entering the event horizon is on a 1-way trip into the singularity.- Once matter has reached the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.- Once matter has left the singularity, it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from
Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:05:53Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???OK, it's a fair question.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:05:53Why do you claim that it is not meaningful to extrapolate backwards to where it came from???
But if I have a machine that multiplies by zero I can't do that.It doesn't matter if I put 3,5,7, or any other number into it, the output is always zero.
https://www.space.com/most-distant-quasar-discovery-giant-black-hole"In fact, scientists estimate that, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to 25 suns every year."Hence, on average, this particular quasar's black hole ingests an amount of mass equivalent to one sun every two weeks.We have supper advanced technology.We can detect stars at the most-distant-galaxy (at a similar distance as this quasar) and even verify their structure.So, how could it be that after observing that quasar for quite long time, we didn't observe even one tinny star as it falls inwards with amazing fireworks?
- But maybe the Big Bang has some characteristics of a white hole?- Matter leaving the big bang is on a 1-way trip out of the singularity.
QuoteThe formula is as follow:u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)The formula for relative velocity is 100% correct.
The formula is as follow:u = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)
However, don't forget that Einstein had called it the "relative" velocity and not the "real" velocity.
1. What is the distance formula?Is it:S = V T
What is the real distance that B moved away from A at a given time T?
4. What is the real distance that C moved away from A at a given time TIs it:Sca = Sba + Scb = v T + u' T = (v + u') T
Where is the error in this calculation?
You [Halc] clearly claim that Cosmological coordinates are not inertial, and the formula is different.So, why we can't assume that based on the Cosmological coordinates we get the real velocity?
His formula tells us that even if the far away object (C) is moving away at real velocity - u (real) - which is higher than the speed of light, the Observer A would still be able to see it as the relative velocity is: u (relative) = (v+u') / (1+ vu'/c^2)Therefore, we clearly observe galaxies that are moving away at velocities that are greater than c.
Sorry, it isn't a sum of velocities but sum of distances.Where is it stated that it isn't allowed to sum distances?
QuoteI assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.That's not what that means. "Inertial" means that the observer is not accelerating.
I assume that "Inertial" frames means - relative.
We can see that in this photo the Boy is relatively bigger than the elephant.
Due to the relatively velocity law, the first one can still observe the last one as their relative velocity must be less than the speed of light.
I must say that it is very difficult for me to accept the idea that also in this case the real distance between the two ends of this raw (with 1000 segments in between) is increasing at the maximum by only c(almost) * T.
As we move further away, the velocity of the galaxies is increasing almost linearity.
So, why can't we understand that at any point (up to the infinity)
We see that all the galaxies sit very nicely on the linear graph.However, suddenly at the Virgo cluster (15MPC) we clearly observe severe dispersion in the velocities.Do you have any idea for the source of this dispersion in the velocities?
The input (stars that falls in) is absolutely ZERO.
This thread is starting to look more and more like your Theory D thread. That's a problem because it would count as an evasion of the closing of the original thread. Let's not do that.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 06:07:46Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?You can, but so far the Big Bang theory is still the best candidate for explaining the observations.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 20/05/2022 06:07:46Is there any possibility for us to look again on all the current observations/measurements without the BBT glass/filter?
We are, by now, fairly familiar with black holes (we now have seen the shadow cast by two of them).
Dear KryptidYou gave me the permission to take out the BBT filter:
The Idea that the SMBH eats stars is a key element in the BBT.If you don't give me the permission to discuss about the SMBH, how can I offer better candidate for explaining the observations.Please try to forget the Theory D.We discuss on real solution for the Universe.Is it relevant if I'm using now some ideas from BG, some from you, some from Halc some from Theory D and other from Z?Evan Au started the discussion about the BH.
So, do you give me the permission to evolve my ideas and discuss about BH or not?
The Idea that the SMBH eats stars is a key element in the BBT.
A white hole, like a black one, is a massive difference in gravitational potential near a location in space, while BBT describes a flat universe with uniform potential everywhere with minor local variations forming over time.