[Bored chemist]

Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?

Nothing to do with it.

I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.

Ships in seas and in space are real.

(So is the story of ships running backwards)

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.

No.
Because you are saying they travel at 19 knots WRT the water but in fact they are traveling at 19 knots WRT the land.

It is a different statement.
The important difference is that your statement is not true.

I have to ask for apology from all of you.

You should do that regardless of anyone's view of God.

By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.

If I didn't care about real science, I wouldn't be using my time trying to correct you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

No.

Really???
Did you read the following?
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."
What is the meaning of:
"how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light" or "it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light"

In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?

[Bored chemist]

moving faster than the seed of light?

From the point of view of the jellyfish, the seagull, or the harbourmaster?

[Bobolink]

In any case, do you agree that based on the BBT far end galaxies are moving faster than the seed of light?

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.

Now you will show us a little willful ignorance or say the scientists are wrong. 

[Kryptid]

I 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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Yes, your explanation was very clear to me
However, 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/#3f837e2772a2
there'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.
So, our scientists should know for sure that at a critical distance of 13-to-15 billion light-year, the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light.
I don't need more than that.
However, somehow you/they are positively sure that ONLY the BBT with its expansion in space can answer this phenomenon.
Therefore you claim for "appear to be moving faster than light"
So, if we discuss about the BBT, than this "appear to be moving faster than light" is real, while if we discuss on other theory than it is forbidden to use this "appear to be moving faster than light".
Is it real?
Do you think that only the BBT has royalties on the apparent recession speed of far end galaxies?
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.
In this article they show that virgo at 78,000,000 Ly is moving away at 1,200 Km/s while hydra at 3,960,000,000 Ly is moving away at 61,000 Km/s.
They claim that this observation was "First noted by Vesto Slipher back in 1917"
Therefore, you don't need to be scientist in order to understand (in 1917) that as the galaxy is located further away its recession velocity should be higher.
Therefore, long before the BBT idea, our scientists could estimate that if our universe is big enough galaxies MUST have a recession velocity which is higher than the speed of light.
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."

So, the relativity works at the same spatial location at the same moment in time.
However, if there are two objects with different spacetime coordinates from one another, there's another factor that comes into play that absolutely cannot be ignored.
" The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."

In other words - at the far end (above 15 BLY) galaxies for sure are receding away faster than the speed of light.
If you are a BBT believer, than you can do so ONLY due to the expansion idea.
If you are not BBT believer, than you can do so due to different spacetime coordinates from one another.
Therefore, the location of different spacetime coordinates is very critical.
This fully meets the other article which highlighted that relativity works locally.
Therefore, we can't compare local activity at our current spacetime coordinates to different spacetime coordinates at the far away location
Hence, I have claimed that I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space (as long as they are located locally and I can still see them)

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:08
I 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.

No, the ship analogy is valid only for local spacetime. We focus on different spacetime coordinates.
Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!

[Bobolink]

Yes, your explanation was very clear to me
However, 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/#3f837e2772a2
there'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.

Yep, the article falsified your conjecture and supports the BBT.

I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.

[Bobolink]

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.

That is false, you made that up.
When the recession velocity was first discovered they were not even sure there were other galaxies or if they were just looking at nebula.  Do you have a source that shows astronomers were talking about recession velocities greater than c in 1917?

[Kryptid]

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)..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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)..

Thanks.
So you claim that any object (except of...) already has a different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, you actually confirm the basic idea in that article that a far away galaxy should have its own different space-time coordinates.
Therefore, I don't see any contradiction between your explanation to the following article:
"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."
"The presence of matter/energy means that objects in our spacetime cannot be static and unchanging, but will see their spatial positions evolve with time as the very fabric of spacetime evolves."

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Now, let's see if I understand your key message:
You all claim that: "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."
In other words, based on the BBT and the expansion theory, galaxies at the far end are not moving through space faster than the speed of light, but the space is expanding and carrying along those galaxies at a velocity faster than the speed of light.
So, based on the BBT galaxies are carried by the expansion in space at faster than the speed of light.
However, you insist that based on BBT those far end galaxies are not moving through space but they are carried at faster than the seed of light.
Therefore, due to the BBT it is forbidden to claim that they are moving though space at greater than the speed of light, but it is ok to claim that they are carried by expansion at faster than the speed of light.
Well, you actually band the physics law to support only your BBT theory.
Sorry - as you agree that galaxies are carried by expansion in space at faster than the speed of light, than by definition you have to agree that with regards to our point of view the recession velocity of those far end galaxies should be faster than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradict with the relativity.
I have already offered an article that relativity works locally.
So, at any local aria or relatively at close "space-time coordinates" we all agree that galaxies can't move faster than the speed of light with regards to each other.
However, at a very far away location (let's assume at 13-15 BLY away from us) the "space-time coordinates" of that location is quite different from our location. Therefore, the relative recession between one local "space-time coordinates" to the farther away "space-time coordinates" could be greater than the speed of light.
This doesn't contradicts the relativity as it works locally (I have already offered an article that supports this issue)
Therefore, due to relativity at each local space-time coordinates the galaxies can't move faster than the light.
Hence, I fully agree that galaxies can't move through space (or at their local space-time coordinates) at faster than the speed of light. However, two far away space-time coordinates could have a recession velocity which is faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, the expansion in space is not the ONLY ULTIMATE solution for the recession velocity but it could also be due to totally different space-time coordinates, relativity that works only locally, or even Abra cadabra.
As long as you agree that the recession velocity of far end galaxies could be faster than the speed of light, this is perfectly Ok for me.
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.
So, please how do you dare to claim today that only the BBT can explain this recession velocity?
How can you forget the history so fast?
If your explanation about the expansion in space was correct, than why our scientists had to use the dark energy to overcome the gravity that should slow down that recession velocity?

[Bobolink]

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

That is a pop science article.  Pop science articles are dumbed down so that laymen can get a general gist of a scientific theory.  Apparently it was not dumbed down enough. 
As you wrote, quoting from the article:

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,

You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.  I mean, WTF?

[Bored chemist]

I am a little puzzled why you would bring an article that says you are wrong though.

I think the solution to that puzzle is that he didn't understand the article.

[Bobolink]

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.

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.  This is clearly explained in any decent article about expansion of the universe.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, this analogy is none relevant for our discussion!

"Non" is not the same as "none".

And the analogy is relevant, it's just that you don't understand it.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I didn't know that.

"Vesto Melvin Slipher (/ˈslaɪfər/; November 11, 1875 – November 8, 1969) was an American astronomer who performed the first measurements of radial velocities for galaxies. He was the first to discover that distant galaxies are redshifted, thus providing the first empirical basis for the expansion of the universe.He was also the first to relate these redshifts to velocity."

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesto_Slipher

Now, if the rate of recession is roughly proportional to the distance, then two things can  be deduced from that.
If the universe is "big enough" then there will be things whose rate of recession should exceed C.
And the other thing you can deduce is that, if you "run the film backwards"  so to speak, you can find a point where all the universe was in the same place- a big bang.

The empirical data, over 100 years ago, showed that there was a big bang.

Yet Dave thinks this is evidence that there was no big bang.

Even without the "expansion" part of the BBT model, we need to account for relativity (for sufficiently distant objects).
One  idea that would have been reasonable at the time (there' wouldn't have been data to show it was wrong) would have been to say that the universe isn't old enough and big enough for it to be a problem.

Another would have been to point out that the recession velocities are not due to travel through space (which is limited to C) but to travel with space.

A bit like a ship with a top speed of 10 knots travelling between two ports 19 nm apart in  an hour because there was a 9 knot current.
A scientist thinking about this 100 years ago would have been perfectly happy with the second option.
Dave isn't, but nobody knows why.

[Bored chemist]

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.

I'm just quoting the bit where Dave says exactly the opposite of what he thinks he says, just in case anyone gets creative with editing.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Another demonstration that you don't know what "different space-time coordinates" means.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You can't try use an article to support your conjecture when it clearly contradicts it.

No it doesn't
I have stated the following:

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."

So, they clearly explain the expansion issue. But they also add the explanation about different space-time coordinates.

That is a pop science article

Well, it is clear to me by now that any article that not fully support your exact point of view is automatically - pop science.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:24:01
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.

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.

Yes, that is correct:
https://www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied exploding stars known as supernovae to determine that the universe is expanding. Since then, scientists have sought to determine just how fast. It seemed obvious that gravity, the force which draws everything together, would put the brakes on the spreading cosmos, so the question many asked was, just how much was the expansion slowing?
In the 1990s, two independent teams of astrophysicists again turned their eyes to distant supernovae to calculate the deceleration. To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."
If you don't like that pop article, it is stated in the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
It was long thought that q was positive, indicating that the expansion is slowing down due to gravitational attraction. This would imply an age of the universe less than 1/H (which is about 14 billion years). For instance, a value for q of 1/2 (once favoured by most theorists) would give the age of the universe as 2/(3H). The discovery in 1998 that q is apparently negative means that the universe could actually be older than 1/H. However, estimates of the age of the universe are very close to 1/H.

So, until early 1990 our scientists were sure that the expansion is slowing down due to gravity. Therefore, they couldn't predict and they also didn't claim at that time that far end galaxies could have a recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light.
They were sure that the gravity is slowing down the expansion.
Therefore, they have offered one more imagination that is called dark energy.
So, the dark energy had to overcome on the gravity that was expected to slow down the expansion.
"To their surprise, they found that the expansion of the universe wasn't slowing down, it was speeding up! Something must be counteracting gravity, something which the scientists dubbed "dark energy."

So, this is one more confirmation that our scientists were sure that due to gravity the expansion should slow down.
Therefore, as the expansion didn't slow down (as expected) than our scientists can't claim today that ONLY the BBT can give explanation for the recession velocity.
To make it short:
1.Do you confirm that based on the BBT galaxies at the far end have a recession velocity which is faster that the speed of light?
2. Do you agree that in early 1990 our scientists were positively sure that the expansion is slowing down?

If you agree with that, than you have to agree that the far end galaxies have recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT

Therefore, galaxies at the far end could move faster than the speed of light due to totally different space-time coordinates

Another 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
The BBT has no royalties for that discovery especially as it was not expected by the BBT.
Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!

[Kryptid]

I 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. The Big Bang theory in itself does not require either an accelerating expansion or a decelerating expansion.

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

Nor have I tried to. Even if the Big Bang theory had never been proposed, your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity (you know very well that you have never read from any authoritative source that objects that are far apart are allowed to move through space relative to each other faster than light. The reason that you have never read any such thing is because it isn't true). Spatial expansion doesn't violate special relativity because nothing is actually moving through space faster than light. That is the subtle difference that you seem to be incapable of grasping.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, you can't prevent from theory D to use this key element!!!!

Nobody really cares what you put into your idea (It's still not a theory)
It's still based on an error.
So it's still wrong.
Here's the error.

The 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.