[Bobolink]

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

This is a pop science article, but it does support the exact mainstream view. 
You wrote:

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:

First and foremost the article does not say or imply that relativity is 'overcome'.

So what is this REAL reason you are talking about?
The article states:

But 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.

His explanation leaves a bit to be desired but this is for people with no science education so...
He says special relativity says that objects moving relative to one another cannot exceed c.  Good enough.  He then is saying that for different spacetime coordinates or objects like galaxies that are very far apart there is another factor.

So what is this factor?

The article states:
In addition to the special relativistic motion, which occurs relative to the spacetime coordinate you're presently occupying, there's also an effect that only shows up when you start thinking in terms of general relativity: the curvature and evolution of spacetime itself.

Ah, this other factor is general relativity.

The article continues:
Whereas special relativity only takes place in uncurved, static space, the real Universe has matter and energy in it. 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. If you're in the vicinity of a large mass, like a star or a black hole, space will be curved so that you'll experience an acceleration towards that mass. This happens even in the absence of motion relative to the fabric of space itself; space is behaving like a flowing river or a moving walkway, dragging all objects along with it as it flows.

So as the article mentions multiple times the galaxies are not moving through space faster than c, the expansion is faster than c, and this an attempt clarify how general relativity is involved and this was misunderstood by you.  What a shock!

So the entire article supports the mainstream view of the BBT and says your conjecture is not possible.

So it is time for your almost superhuman willful ignorance to kick in and time for you to close your eyes and your mind to reality.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks you all
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:04:34
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.

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.

your model would still be wrong because it violates special relativity

I'm quite sure that it doesn't.
The special relativity is very clear to me. However, I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.

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

What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?
Is it Hubble law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In the following article it is stated:
"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."
However, Hubble's law is based on the observation of galaxies that are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
Therefore, this law tells us only about the galaxies expansions in space. It doesn't give any indication about the space expansion itself:
"Hubble'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. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth. The velocity of the galaxies has been determined by their redshift, a shift of the light they emit to the red end of the spectrum"

Therefore, the assumption that we see/observe the expansion in space is totally wrong.
Our scientists have to say clearly that we only monitor the galaxies - not the space itself.

Therefore, The following statement is totally wrong:
"Today, in the context of general relativity, velocity between distant objects depends on the choice of coordinates used, and therefore, the redshift can be equally described as a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space, or some combination of the two."

How could they claim that "a Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) due to the expanding space" while they know for sure that this Doppler shift or a cosmological shift (or gravitational) is due to the expanding galaxies?
How they dare to change the expanding galaxies to expanding space?
This is a fatal lie.

They can tell us that they believe/hope/wish that this observation of expanding galaxies is due to expanding space.
However, when you read this article, you get a strong impression that they really measure the expanding space itself - and this is totally incorrect.

Therefore, Let's try to understand what is Hubble law:
"Hubble's law the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.
So, Hubble law is clearly related to expansion galaxies.
Therefore, the Hubble constant is also related to expansion galaxies
"Hubble constant is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving the speed in km/s of a galaxy 1 megaparsec (3.09×1019 km) away, and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc."
Therefore, Hubble constant Hubble gives excellent indication for the OBSERVED galaxies expansion in (km/s)/Mpc and its value is about 70 (km/s)/Mpc.
The question is - how can we explain this Observed galaxies expansion:
One option is by expansion in space as our scientists hope/wish.
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.
With both theories we get exactly the same result (Same Hubble constant – same Observable Universe).
Let's assume that we are located at point A
If we look at the horizon to one direction of our Universe we see galaxy B (at about 13BLY) with a recession velocity is almost the speed of light.
If we could jump over there, we should see in the same direction at the horizon galaxy C that is also moving almost at the speed of light.
In this way we can continue on and on to Galaxy D, E and F
To make it short.
A, B C D E F are located in one line
A see B at almost the speed of light
B see C at almost the Speed of Light and so on.

So, the Hubble constant is identical in Theory D and BBT, and both theories brings us to the same Universe -  Density, Observable, CMB (I will discuss about it later on)...
Why are you so sure that the BBT must win due to special relativity?

[Bored chemist]

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.

Well... science is able to change a theory in lhe light of new evidence,
We learn.
If the same was true of engineering, we would not have cars. Nobody would have tried cars because they contradict the idea that you need a horse and cart.

I have already offered you an article that highlights that relativity might works locally.

And I have pointed out that relativity has ben demonstrated on an intergalactic scale.

What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?

All the relevant observations support the idea-.
That's why the idea is still around.

[Bored chemist]

The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.

...which violates relativity.

[Bobolink]

Thanks you all
I really appreciate your time and efforts in this discussion.

Really? Then why don't you put in a little effort to cut back on the willful ignorance and self delusion?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Two simple questions:

1.Do you confirm that the following information is correct:
"Hubble'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. In other words, the further they are the faster they are moving away from Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
So, 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?
2. Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?

[Bored chemist]

In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
yes

Do you agree that Hubble's law / constant is all about galaxies expansion?

No, it's about the expansion of space.

Hence, we do not observe the space expansion but we only observe/monitor the galaxies expansion?

What we see is the red shift of galaxies
What 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.
In much the same way that someone who sees a ship apparently  travelling faster than its top speed can deduce that there is a current.

Therefore, anyone who claims that we Observable/monitor the space expansion is a simple LIER?

No, they might be clever enough to understand what's happening at a slightly deeper level than you do.


BTW, the word is ""liar".

[Bobolink]

One simple question:
Why do we keep feeding the troll? 
I'm done.  I might pop in from time to time to give a one word reply of 'wrong', but the as we all know, it is pointless to argue with a crank.

[Bored chemist]

Why do we keep feeding the troll? 

In case some unfortunate comes across this thread and thinks that, because it's on a respectable science site, it must be right.

It would be easier if the mods just closed down the most obvious cranks- at least the ones who really add nothing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In other words, the further the GALAXIES are the faster they are moving away from Earth?
yes
What we see is the red shift of galaxies

Thanks for the confirmation!
So, if you confirm that we observe the redshift of the galaxies, than why do you claim that we OBSERVE the space expansion.
Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?

What kind of real observation can support the idea for space expansion?

All the relevant observations support the idea-.

As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.

What we see is the red shift of galaxies
What 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.

This kind of point of view is wrong. Let me offer an example of a car that is moving on the highway.
If clever people see that car they deduce that it is moving on the highway by its engine power.
However, based on your wrong point of view, very clever people should deduce that the car is not moving at all. We just think that it is moving due to the expansion in the highway.

Sorry, this is none realistic. What we see is what we have!
As we see the redshift of the galaxies, it proves that the galaxies are moving.
Again - the galaxies are moving - not the imaginary space.
Why do we need very cleaver scientists to change the reality?
What's wrong with cleaver scientists that are willing to accept the reality as is?
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.
Please - it's time for our very cleaver scientists to accept the observation as is!!!!
Theory D gives a perfect explanation for moving galaxies based on Hubble law & constant.
No need for imaginary ideas as space expansion.
It is directly based only on real Scientific_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[
In this long list of Scientific_law I couldn't find even one word about expansion in space or even just about expansion.
This idea is not part of any Scientific_law and therefore it is not real.
How any scientist who is using the name of science can justify any idea that is not directly based on Scientific_law?
Why do you reject a theory that fully meets all Scientific_laws including Hubble law for moving galaxy only due to relativity, while you have no problem to accept this imagination idea of space expansion that is absolutely not part of any scientific law?
If you carry the name of Scientific_law for nothing, then please do it for all.

With regards to relativity or Faster-than-light:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/05/2020 21:08:08
The other option is Galaxy over galaxy.

...which violates relativity.

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.
A galaxy which is located at the horizon of the Universe couldn't considered as part of our locally distorted spacetime region.
Therefore, this far away galaxy could move faster than the speed of light relativity to our locally distorted spacetime region. However, it shouldn't move faster than the speed of light at its locally distorted spacetime region.

[Kryptid]

There's another way to tell if galaxies are moving through space or whether space is expanding between them. That is by looking at the relationship between the angular diameters of the galaxies and their distance from Earth. 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

But I feel pretty certain that:

(1) Dave will not properly understand what this means, and
(2) he will find some way to pervert this information in order to claim that it doesn't actually support the notion of space expanding.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

Thanks Kryptid
This 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.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, Do you agree that your following reply is wrong?

No

As we don't have any direct observation for space expansion.

We don't have any direct observation of atoms or even air but...
Who has seen the wind?
Neither I nor you:
But when the leaves hang trembling,
The wind is passing through.

Who has seen the wind?
Neither you nor I:
But when the trees bow down their heads,
The wind is passing by.


Science is allowed to use indirect observation and deduction.

[Kryptid]

Thanks Kryptid
This 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.

Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!

[Bored chemist]

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.

But if they see a ship moving faster then 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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

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.
However, if you are an Indian living in America during the 15 century and see the mighty Spanish ships you might consider that you see the messenger of god.
Just to remind you that the Indians offered their daughters to those Spanish solders that were riding on a mighty animal that we called horse.
So, the Indians had no idea about ships or horses. Therefore, they have started to pray to those Spanish solders.
Could it be that our scientists behave as those Indian in the 15 century?
When our scientists saw for the first time the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies they were very puzzled.
Therefore, they have adopted the BBT theory and start thinking about space expansion.
This is very normal. At that time they didn't had a clue about the cutting edge technology of rocket galaxies.
Therefore, they have believed in the BBT.
However, today with the most advanced knowledge of the rocket galaxies we know why the far end galaxies are moving at those ultra high velocities.
It is very natural.
It took the Indians only few years to understand the those Spanish solders aren't God messengers.
How long it should take our scientists to understand that the BBT isn't a theory from god and there is a simple explanation for our universe?
The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.
We know that it is so simple to carry a boat at the speed of sound by the most advanced rockets.
No need for tide, wind or current.
No need for BBT, space expansion dark matter or dark energy.

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?

Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.
In the article it is stated clearly -

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.

Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple idea
Relativity works locally!!!!

Yep, I was right. You didn't understand it!

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/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.
They clearly discuss about galaxies expansions (I have found 15 times the word - galaxies).
So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?

[Kryptid]

So, please, why are you so sure that it is not about galaxies expansion but about space expansion?

Because I actually understand it. I will explain it one time and one time only. If you don't get it after that, then too bad. Light takes time to travel through space. The expansion of space itself causes those photons of light to get spread further apart than if space was not expanding. That extra spread makes distant galaxies look larger than they would if space was not expanding. If the galaxies were simply moving away from us and space was not expanding, then the apparent size of those galaxies would always be smaller the further away from us they are.

[Bored chemist]

The rocket galaxies knowledge is very simple and natural.

And wrong, because it violates relativity.

[Bored chemist]

Relativity is correct. However. it only works locally.

In reality, relativity has been demonstrated to work on an intergalactic scale.
You are wrong. I already explained this to you.
Why don't you take it on board?

Why is it so difficult for all of you to understand that simple idea
Relativity works locally!!!!

Because the observations show that it works on a huge - at least intergalactic- scale.

Why can't you accept this fact?

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/#461f31b5cb5f
Not even a single word about space expansion.

Keep reading it until you spot these.

"Do ancient galaxies appear larger to us than they really were, due to the expansion of the Universe? If so, then by how much?"
"the Universe itself is expanding,"
" regardless of the Universe's expansion. A wide suite of evidence supports this cosmic picture, but this ever-changing expansion rate aff..."

[Bored chemist]

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.

Yes, so if you saw it travelling above the speed of sound- i.e. at more than its top speed, you would know that it was being carried along by something else.
It doesn't matter what the top speed is, or what sort of engine it has , what matters is that it can't go faster than the top speed.
That's what "top" means in this context.
Did you not understand that?
Thanks for making  my point for me
The stuff about indians seems... let's say "confused".