[Bored chemist]

Don't you understand that there is no expansion in space in theory D,

Then you do not have this.

However, in curved space-time, there is absolutely no rule that says that an object cannot be faster than light relative to a distant observer.
So even today, there are parts of the universe, which are inaccessible to us through observation, which (as far as we know) are moving faster than light relative to us. But that’s okay. They are not moving faster than light at their own location."
Therefore, Lorentz factor isn't applicable in curved space-time.
Based on that input, it is forbidden to use Lorenz factor that was developed for local space time on redshift that we get from far away space time.

Because that's based on deforming space.
So, make up your mind; are you wrong, or wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because that's based on deforming space.
So, make up your mind; are you wrong, or wrong?

In both theories the 10th galaxy gets to the same distance and same velocity with reference to the first galaxy.
So, why is it important to you to know if it is there in that same location and same velocity due to galaxies expansion or space expansion?

[Bored chemist]

So, why is it important to you to know if it is there in that same location and same velocity due to galaxies expansion or space expansion?

Expansion of space gets things apparently  travelling faster than light.
Expansion of matter- such as a galaxy- does not.

It's important to me because only one of them is physically possible.
Why is it not important to you?
Do you not understand it?

Have you forgotten that, when you talked a lot of nonsense about "rocket over rocket" early on in this thread, we explained to you that velocities do not add up the way you thought they did?
We explained that you have to use relativistic formulae and they show that you are wrong.
Did you not understand?
Did you think we would forget?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Expansion of space gets things apparently  travelling faster than light.

Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?
If so, you have to agree that they can ONLY measure the velocity and locations of galaxies in space.
They have failed to explain how the far end galaxies could expand at so high velocity.
Therefore, they have invented the imagination of space expansion.
So, do you confirm once and for all that you and all the 100,000 scientists don't have any real confirmation for the expansion in the space itself?

It's important to me because only one of them is physically possible.

Why is it?
How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".
Can you please prove this "physically possible" imagination by real measurements of the space itself?
Why is it so important for you how the galaxies get to their current locations and gain their current velocities?
As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?
So, if theory D by its expansion in galaxies can deliver the 10th galaxy to the same location in space as the BBT with its space expansion and also at the same velocity, then why the imagination of space expansion is ok for you while the real expansion in galaxies isn't ok?
Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Have you forgotten that, when you talked a lot of nonsense about "rocket over rocket" early on in this thread, we explained to you that velocities do not add up the way you thought they did?
We explained that you have to use relativistic formulae and they show that you are wrong.

You are wrong.
As the 10th galaxy gets to the same location and at the same velocity based on both theories, then you just can't qualify the space expansion imagination without a valid evidence for that expansion in the space itself.

[Kryptid]

Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.

Do you know how?

[Bored chemist]

Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?

No
LIGO measures changes in the size of space- it follows the stretch and shrink of space as gravity waves pass through it.

Did you not realise that science actually all works?

How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".

Because we  measured it.
Why do you keep calling real things "imagination"?

As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?

If booth planes fly 1000 miles, but one measures their flight by looking at the ground, and the other measures it by looking at airspeed, only on plane will actually get to the destination.

Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!

No.
Why would I try to remember something which is wrong?
That would be silly.
In the real world, we can measure displacements of space itself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33
Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?

No
LIGO measures changes in the size of space- it follows the stretch and shrink of space as gravity waves pass through it.
Did you not realise that science actually all works?

Why do you carry the name of Ligo for nothing?
In Ligo we observe how the matter (as twin BHs) affects the space due to their gravitational wave.
However, based on the BBT the space must affect the matter. (As the space itself expands it carry the matter (stars/galaxies) with it.
So, the BBT represents an opposite activity with regards to the Ligo observation.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33
How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".

Because we  measured it.
Why do you keep calling real things "imagination"?

If you still think that Ligo is the correct observation for the BBT imagination, then please introduce the article that proves that Ligo is correct indication for the expansion of the space ITSELF.
Please show the coordinates of the Space frame and proves that those coordinates are expanding over time (with or without the galaxies in that space).
I call it imagination, that only those 100,000 scientists can base hold so unrealistic theory as the BBT without any prove/observation for the expansion in the space itself.
You claim that you have an evidence for that - so please introduce your imagination evidence by real article.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33
As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?

If booth planes fly 1000 miles, but one measures their flight by looking at the ground, and the other measures it by looking at airspeed, only on plane will actually get to the destination.

What a nonsense.
I tell you that you get exactly to the same location and exactly at the same speed, so why is it so important for you how do you get over there?
Theory D is realistic as it is all about expansion of the galaxies.
The BBT is imagination as there is no valid way to verify if there is any expansion in the space itself/frame.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33
Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!

No.

Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?
If I remember correctly, Kryptid had already confirmed that we can ONLY observe the matter in the space but we can't observe the space frame.
If you are not sure about it - please ask him about it.

Do you know how?

Yes I know
Please let me finish that important discussion with BC.

[Kryptid]

Yes I know

I'm skeptical.

Please let me finish that important discussion with BC.

Based on the rest of this thread, that will never happen.

[Bored chemist]

It's a matter of definition.
The evidence shows that Dave is wrong.
So the discussion is really over.
But Dave isn't able to understand this, so we might be here for a while.

[Bored chemist]

Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?

I did.
It's still LIGO.

I tell you that you get exactly to the same location and exactly at the same speed, so why is it so important for you how do you get over there?

Moving with the air  and moving through the air are different things for a plane.
That's why flight times UK to US are different from flight times US to UK.
The jet stream is with you in one direction and against in the other.

It's the same for galaxies.
They move through space (the oddly named "peculiar velocity") but they also move with space as space expands.

So, the problem is, you say they get to the same place, but they don't.
One gets carried a lot further because the space moves much faster than the galaxy.

[Bored chemist]

If I remember correctly, Kryptid had already confirmed that we can ONLY observe the matter

We observe the matter.
It has an apparent velocity which is faster than light.
But we know that's impossible.
So we know that most of the velocity is due to the expansion of space.

Kryptid's view does not contradict mine.
Your view contradicts reality...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:40:56
Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?

I did.
It's still LIGO.

You have totally failed to show that Ligo gives any indication for space expansion.
If that all you have then you have to know that you have no evidence for the space expansion.

It's a matter of definition.
The evidence shows that Dave is wrong.

Sorry - you are using wrong evidence.
Our scientists have no indication for that imagination that is called space expansion.
Therefore, any one that would dare to claim again that we have evidence for the space expansion without offering that evidence by real article is twisting the true.

Moving with the air  and moving through the air are different things for a plane.
That's why flight times UK to US are different from flight times US to UK.
The jet stream is with you in one direction and against in the other.
It's the same for galaxies.
They move through space (the oddly named "peculiar velocity") but they also move with space as space expands.

As I have stated, our scientists have no evidence for that imagination that is called space expansion.
The real evidence is that we only observe the expansion of the galaxies.
Therefore, you can call the velocity due to the imagination space expansion in any name that you wish, but as long as you can't prove that imagination by real observation/evidence then your expansion is just irrelevant.

We observe the matter.
It has an apparent velocity which is faster than light.

So, you confirm that matter moves faster than the speed of light.
This contradicts your other statement that nothing can move faster than light
Hence, you already knew that Olber's paradox is just nonsense

I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.

But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.

Therefore,  your statement that the universe can't be infinite is absolutely wrong.
So, why do you waste our time for nothing???

But we know that's impossible.
So we know that most of the velocity is due to the expansion of space.

You have no basic clue how our universe really works.
Instead of fighting on that imagination that is called BBT, why don't you open your mind to the real theory?

So the discussion is really over.
But Dave isn't able to understand this, so we might be here for a while.

I would never even agree ith that space expansion imagination.
Therefore, the discussion on this imagination is over.
Now it's the time for me to work on the answer for Kryptid question.

[Kryptid]

Now it's the time for me to work on the answer for Kryptid question.

Just make sure your explanation follows all of your rules. Here is a sample of your quotes for you to keep in mind:

"Could be" is nice first step but it's not good enough

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

I think differently – "Science is all about proof".

Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

This is how real theory works -
You set an expectation - and you prove it by real evidence!!!

How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?

Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.

The law of physics must be based on observation.
If we see a contradiction between any law of science to the observation - then we must change the law of science and not the observation.
The observation is the Ultimate evidence for our Universe.
There is no way to bypass the observation!
You have no authority to ignore or to bypass it even if you call yourself "scientist"

Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!

Any law of science must be based on clear observation.

So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?

Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.

They have to prove  those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.

Any modeling must be based on real science.

What we see is what we have.

If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.

Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.

We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.

That transformation/creation process must represent a real physical process/law.

However, if you claim that the BBT is real science, then there is no room for - we don't know" or "Hope" in real science.

There is no room for "we don't know or "Maybe".
If our scientists don't know - then please they can't tell us that they know.
If it is "maybe" then maybe they just don't know the real theory for our Universe?

How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.

Your "We don't Know" is not an acceptable real science' answer!!!

Sorry - if you do not know than please stop all your nonsense.

Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.

As long as you ignore them all and just wait to see that maybe in the future you would find something to support your imagination, then you can't represent the science any more.
You have to explain what we see TODAY
Is it clear to you?

Don't you understand that our current Theories including the BBT is based on what we can see and not on what we haven't observed yet?
Sorry - we must base our understanding on what we see and observe.

Sorry - we can't claim that we should see something that we didn't see yet!
We must base our theory on what we clearly see and not on something that we didn't see yet.

Sorry - our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences. They shouldn't use any sort of hope or lie as an observation.

it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.

Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?

Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!

How could they base science or "pretty sure"

Is it pretty sure - "yes" or "no"
Sorry - science must be based on real measurements and not on "pretty sure".

Science must be based on real observation.

The Observations and evidences are much more important than any physics law.

In order to call it a theory, First you must understand clearly how it works and then try to convince us that what you understand is correct.
There is no way to convince us that what you "don't know" is correct.
Hence - As long as you "don't know" how the BBT really works step by step - then you and all the BBT believers lie when you call the BBT as a "Theory".

[Bored chemist]

You have totally failed to show that Ligo gives any indication for space expansion.

That's the thing it does.
It monitors the expansion and contraction of space.
What point did you think you  were making?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - you are using wrong evidence.

There is no such thing as "the wrong evidence".
All evidence is essentially equivalent, but you  are quite good at showing that not all interpretations of evidence are valid.

As I have stated, our scientists have no evidence for that imagination that is called space expansion.

You have falsely made this statement.
Declaring yourself to have told lies does not help your case.

So, you confirm that matter moves faster than the speed of light.

No
I confirm that space travels faster than light.
Stop telling lies about what I confirm.

You have no basic clue how our universe really works.

No statement which I have made is at odds with the laws of physics.
Many of your statements are.

why don't you open your mind to the real theory?

No real  theory will contradict the laws of physics as your "theory" D does.

I would never even agree ith that space expansion

Scientists agree with evidence.
Why don't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I confirm that space travels faster than light.
Stop telling lies about what I confirm.

How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observation to prove that it even moved by one Pico mm per 13.8BY?
You should know by 100% that we can only measure the observable objects and their radiation.
Therefore, there is no way for us to measure the movement/velocity of the space itself or its coordinates.
Hence, once and for all.
You have stated that: "I confirm that space travels faster than light" not because we monitor the space velocity but as we monitor the far away galaxies velocity.
As you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists can't explain that phenomenon, you have invented the space expansion imagination.
It is not realistic to claim that the matter/galaxies in our Universe is moving faster than the speed of light due to the space expansion, and we know that there is a space expansion as the matter/galaxies in our Universe are moving faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:42:00
I would never even agree with that space expansion

Scientists agree with evidence.
Why don't you?

For the last time:
If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:
If not, then please let's close this discussion while we all agree that you have failed to offer any evidence to prove the expansion in the space itself.

[Bored chemist]

If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:

LIGO

For the last time:

I sincerely hope so.

How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observation

The observation is the large red shift of distant objects.
There are two "explanations" for that.
Either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.

And since we know that things do not travel through space faster than light, we (well, the ones of us who understand logic) know that the space is expanding.

As Sherlock Holmes put it "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:17
If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:
LIGO

No.
You are confused.
Ligo doesn't offer any measurement for the space itself. It is all about the expansion of the matter/galaxies in the universe.
I have found the following relevant article for you:
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW170817Hubble/
MEASURING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE WITH GRAVITATIONAL WAVES
So, based on this title you might think that they have an evidence for the space expansion, But when you read it, you do understand that it is all about the galaxies expansion and not about the space expansion.
In the article it is stated that Ligo is all about data observation on GW170817:
"We have used the gravitational-wave source GW170817, which was detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo on August 17 2017, to make the first-ever standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant."
Therefore, Ligo proves that this object is correlated to the Hubble constant, but it doesn't prove that the space itself is expanding.
Hence, based on Ligo we have better understanding on the expansion of the matter in the Universe, but again it doesn't offer any data on the space itself.
Hence, I fully understand your confusion.
Our scientists had confused you with that wrong impression about the expansion of the Universe.
They have to call it - the expansion of the matter in the Universe.
Actually, they don't claim for the expansion of  the space itself, but the title is very confusing.
Therefore, I claim that in some way those scientists twist the true.
Theory D gives perfect explanation for that observation f the matter expansions in the Universe.
So, the results of Ligo for the expansion of this GW170817 are fully covered by theory D without any need for help by the space expansion.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:17
How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observation

The observation is the large red shift of distant objects.
There are two "explanations" for that.
Either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.

Thanks
I fully agree with that explanation.
So, either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.
However, we all agree that in our current universe things are travelling faster than light.
That is a key message.
Therefore, from now on please do not dare to claim again that in our Universe things aren't travelling faster than light!!!

And since we know that things do not travel through space faster than light we (well, the ones of us who understand logic) know that the space is expanding.

As you have no solid evidence for the expansion in the space itself, then you and all the other 100,00 BBT scientists just don't wish to know how the universe really works.
Our scientists clearly know that they only observe the galaxies but they mislead all of us with this imagination of space expansion.
I have proved that Ligo is all about galaxies expansions and not about space expansions.
Therefore, as you have totally failed to prove that the space of our universe is increasing by one Pico mm per 13.8 By, then it's the time for you to set the space expansion imagination in the garbage and open your mind to the real theory for our Universe.

As Sherlock Holmes put it "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

As you have eliminated the true than whatever remains is untrue.
The galaxies expansion is the real true - Based Hubble and Ligo observation.
The space expansion is not true - Not by any kind of measurements including Ligo.
Please remember - Hubble also observed the expansion of the far end galaxies and not the expansion of the space itself.
Theory D perfectly explains that activity.

Conclusions -
You and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists have failed to offer even one real observation to support the imagination of space expansion.
Ligo & Hubble are real verification for the galaxies expansion and not for the space expansion.
Therefore, Let's agree that you have no evidence for space expansion and let me move on to the next subject.

[Bored chemist]

However, we all agree that in our current universe things are travelling faster than light.

No.
The ones who understand relativity say that things can not tarvel through space faster than light.