Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

Your record on this forum imo surpasses your bout of self pity in post 165.
This is a science forum first and foremost, and errors and baseless claims that are contrary to the evidenced based theories, will be brought to that person's notice and/or corrected as often as necessary, even over and over again..
You were rightly corrected in this thread re your claims that galaxies were moving apart at FTL, with the correct aspect of their recessional velocity due to spacetime expansion, and the fact that this does not contravene any of Einstein's theory, in fact it is predicted.
The other correction was that as portrayed by the god with his usual fabricated unevidenced scenario re local regions such as the Local group of galaxies, being "decoupled" from this overall expansion rate, due to the gravity from those denser regions of spacetime. Again, and observed fact.

Correcting incorrect aspects of 21st century cosmology on a science forum is not "discrediting" you per se, and to say it is, more or less, reflects on your own mindset, and fanatical attitude in pushing uneccessarilly your own "thinking outside the box" mentality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course you do the literal meaning! Like many other guys here.
But what is this "motion along with the space"!!
You did not even attempt the question and maths I gave you with regards to Hubble expansion calculations. None attempted?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science of convenience! It is applicable if distances > 1 mparsec and not applicable below!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's science of observation, not withstanding your obvious god driven agenda, to deride all accepted cosmology, with nothing other than inane rhetoric.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course as we all know if you did have anything supporting your stand, you would not be here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You had no question other then some contrived convenience, and a couple of Hubble terms, that simply supported the status quo and invalidated nothing at all.
The same contrivance that expletive deleted often expected the forum to swallow in his many crusades.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The large scale expansion of spacetime, along with local regions decoupled from that expansion due to local density are observed facts.

 

As opposed to the... temporal meaning? Derivative meaning? Pseudoelectoralcyanocarbonite meaning? What meaning is there beyond the literal, exact, actual meaning?

As already explained - think of it like moving across something that is already moving, or riding a "wave". You yourself, relative to the surface, are moving at one speed. Include the motion of the surface, and you have another speed. However, you are not moving thru that medium at that speed, merely being carried with it.

What question or math? I apologize - I only get to hop in here for sporadic periods due to work; if I missed something, please link it and I'll attempt to revisit.

 

My post # 149.

Shaking head in agreement and understanding the underlying concept are two different things. You are shaking head in agreement that yeah the superluminal galxies are being carried away by the space itself, but dig deeper and tell me have you really understood it. I have not, because there is no such thing as superluminal expansion of space. Be honest.

 

Why dont you have a look at #149 again and tell me what is contrived convenience in that?

 

Your conclusion is contrived and obviously your own fairy tale.

 

That's not what the evidence and previous references and citations shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansionsandexplosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of theentirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric, and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale ofgalaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such things do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate".
Obviously that is only WIKI, so if you prefer something more authoritive than I will oblige.
But of course perhaps you have a reputable citation that says spacetime cannot expand at FTL?
Or perhaps you could put your apparent "thoughts" on paper and submit it for proper professional peer review?
Who knows then where we may see you in November if you have anything of substance!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Have you calculated how long 'sooner or later' is?

86,400km is less than 1/10th the diameter of a medium star such as ours. In a million years, it would recede (if g-unbound) by approximately 3 light years.

The Magellanic clouds are currently 158,000 light years away.

Now, at that distance, a million years would take it about one degree around its orbit of the MW. Hard to call that much of an orbit.

Further - the Magellanic clouds do in fact appear to not have a velocity commensurate with a stable orbit about the MW. i.e. doing exactly what you object to them doing.

So, what exactly makes you think satellite galaxies should be sticking around for some untold number of eons?

You still seem to be operating under the impression that celestial motion is stable and relatively unchanging - as opposed dynamic and continually evolving. It will not look the same in a few million years.

This is telling. You make assertions based on belief, rather than on evidence.

Well, the evidence is above. Will you change your belief?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are attempting to ask - are you asking why it is that the galaxy isn't being thrown askew by superluminal expansion? As in, why are objects not receding from each other within the local galaxy?

Hubble Constant is roughly 160 km/s per one million light years which, if I'm doing my math right, comes to around 10 meters a year per AU of distance. So, the expansion between Earth and Sun would be around 10 meters a year.

I'm guessing your assertion is that, since this isn't happening (we aren't drifting away from the sun), then superluminal rexpansion is false?

Now, we are not receding from the Sun at 10 meters a year - rather, we are receding at around 15 centimeters per year. This makes sense due to the gradual loss of mass of the Sun via nuclear fusion and its solar wind. You also have to take into account Tidal interactions, the gravitational pull of the other planets and satellites in the system, et al.

You cannot take a single (or pair of) part of the equation and expect it to reflect accurately - this is a system with dozens, if not hundreds, of interacting variables. Certainly, the Sun is the largest gravitational body within our immediate area... but every other body still imparts some small force upon this system.

I am not ashamed to admit - I am not capable of doing all the math required to determine what this drift should be based on what I know alread; nor do I have the time (or desire) to sit down and research it sufficiently enough to do so.

That said, there are people out there who have thought on just this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803097v1

To which it would appear that the effect on something as "small scale" as a solar orbit is insignificant, and that it is, in fact, insignificant on a galactic cluster scale.

Now, if you reject this line of reasoning, then certainly you (being as well versed as you claim to be in cosmology) can provide sufficient evidence and/or citation to back this claim? Of course, I cannot see why you would wish NOT to do so - if you were to publish an article disproving this, you would no doubt be heralded as the next great scientific mind of our time.

 

Paddoboy, DavC, Kitamaru,

There is some confusion, I am not able to get you guys views correctly on one crucial point. Please clarify which one you support from following..

1. Locally, the space expansion is there but it gets compensated by gravity.

2. Locally, there is no space expansion.

 

1. Locally, the space expansion is there but it gets compensated by gravity.

2. Locally, there is no space expansion.[/QUOTE]
You are most certainly confused. Higher density regions of spacetime are decoupled from the expansion rate due to gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But again, I see it as painfully obvious, no answer is going to satisfy you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you have been given some advice if you believe the accepted theory is wrong. Why not take it up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are most certainly confused. Higher density regions of spacetime are decoupled from the expansion rate due to gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But again, I see it as painfully obvious, no answer is going to satisfy you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you have been given some advice if you believe the accepted theory is wrong. Why not take it up?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/QUOTE]

Can you please choose either 1 or 2 ?

 

You have my answer and also the answer of others including an excellent WIKI link.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now I really suggest you either accept those answers, that align with all the evidence, or take the advice of others here and do something about what you believe is closer to reality and submit for professional peer review.
Or at least link to some reputable citation/link that supports your stance, whatever fabricated stance that may be.

 

Which one do you support, The God, and why?

 

Prevaricating, Paddoboy. If have guts choose one.

 

My answer is given and aligns with that accepted by mainstream.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You don't like it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tough titty my friend.
Again I suggest you support whatever it is you are fabricating and stop your own prancing around....something for which our friend expletive deleted was banned for.
Here again is the excellent WIKI rundown.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
"The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions and explosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.

Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric, and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such things do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate".
Obviously that is only WIKI, so if you prefer something more authoritive than I will oblige.

 

Ok, I will attempt to understand this link for you.

As per this it seems you are aggreeing with # 2 option?

So, DaveC and Kittamaru, I am waiting for your response.