Galaxies going faster than light ?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by river, Sep 10, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Then I present to you a basic (if not fundamental) problem -

    Prove to me that you exist.
    Prove to me, beyond a doubt (reasonable or unreasonable) that you are not simply some "ghost in the machine", or some other machination by which I have come to merely hallucinate or otherwise perceive your existence where it is not.

    For that matter - prove that I, or any of this site, exists, and that you are not, in fact, sitting in a straight jacket in a padded room pumped full of more drugs than your average pharmacy.

    If we do not accept/assume basic truths... then what foundation do we have to attempt to discern anything further. Some stuff, simply, must be assumed to be true... or else we can not move beyond the "existential crisis" phase.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    D E L E T E D .
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    So you got it that...truth and assumptions are two different things.

    You can assume something to be true, but pl tell me how truth requires assumption.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    the thing that is missing in all of this discussion ; is that NASA its self has discovered that either galaxies or something else is , is in fact travelling faster than the speed of light .

    and the fact that NASA is admitting this ; since this institution tends to be more mainstream in its thinking than , outside the box thinking , should be taken more seriously than most posters have been.

    NASA people are telling us something .
     
  8. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    No, again, the galaxies aren't moving through space faster than light, the space inbetween them is expanding.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    so you think that NASA has not thought about this ? why ?
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I think you are confusing the two - if we don't assume some basic truths (which, in essence, are simply things we have, thus far, not been able to disprove to a reasonable degree), then what would we have left to base any further testing on?

    Gravity, for example - we k ow it exists, and we have several plausible methods of action... but have we "proven" any of them to be "the one" and thus true, or do we simply have to make assumptions based on best-available data and go from there?
     
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I think it's quite the opposite - they have. The issue is that, in translating their findings to layman's terms, important information is lost - just look at my own misunderstanding of the meaning for "frame of reference" as a good example of that. To the logic I was using, what I said and inferred from their findings made sense (that from our position, a galaxy may appear to be moving ftl, when in fact it is moving sunlight but the space between it and us is also expanding, resting in a net appearance of ftl travel)

    unfortunately, the logic itself was flawed due to my misunderstanding of some of the terminology - it doesn't mean that my reasoning was flawed (based on my available knowledge, the logic was sound) , but the conclusion was still inaccurate because of the lack of understanding on my part.

    I don't know if I'm explaining that we'll at all... lol
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Basically you are using the word 'truth' improperly.

    Pl note that you never assume the truth. Truth is truth and it is not falsifiable too.

    What you are possibly attempting to say is that we assume certain things to be "correct" and build up our case on that. All such cases are falsifiable because they are based on certain assumptions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    See how easily you accepted as a matter of fact, something which is very much unbelievable. Not because you are convinced about it, but because it is pushed by mainstream and you have no way to oppose it.

    There are many such points in prevalent cosmology which are bad, but satisfy the observations, and people at large will have to accept them till we find the real truth. Truth is truth, what is being pushed is correct to best of our knowledge as on date, which is subject to change as we pursue further.
     
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You are almost a century behind the times, river. The theory of general relativity, which predicts this kind of motion by galaxies, was developed in 1915. The specific model that is used to model these galaxies was developed in the 1920s. This is novel to you, but not to astronomers.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  15. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Even if galaxies are expanding faster than light, we don't know what is causing this expansion or do we?

    In my opinion general relativity is wrong because it's not compatible with quantum theory but I can wrong though.

    This is what happens when abstract mathematics is equated with doing physics. Math isn't physics and therefore the conclusions arrived at using abstract math is wrong when it is applied to physics.
     
    birch likes this.
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I would say my definition of truth is pretty much exactly what it is. Or would you like to start redefining language now as well?

    The alternative is wild speculation.

    If something is proven to be reasonably consistent and satisfies all currently known scenarios, we can accept it as a truth. If it is later disproven or proven to be only partially true, it is updated. The alternative is... well, there isn't one in terms of science - the alternative would be "everyone make up your own shit and do as you please", and that doesn't work well.
     
  17. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    It seems to work just fine on this forum...
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Other impressionable minds like Daecon are getting mistaught. Pl get to the philosophy or start a new thread about truth. Truth is the real representation of reality, it is unmoved, stable, certainty. It is not open to falsifiable.

    See the definition as given by you, the 'emergent scientific truth'......that is pursuit of science till we reach the truth.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Accepting something as truth under certain observational evidence, does not guarantee the real truth.

    Take for example this Galaxy receding case, the proposition that space in between is expanding FTL is emerging scientific theory, open to changes, need not be a reality and thus not necessary that it is truth.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Riv, this is a non-issue. Always has been. Just Google super-luminal recession. It is a mundane part of Cosmological Expansion.

    [ EDIT ] PhysBang said it better:

    Einstien's GR predicted superluminal expansion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    And in fact as Daecon points out, it is a common tactic.

    It is esssentially a strawman writ large.

    If one can drag every discussion away from the uncountably-tested and re-tested, cumulative good work, done over centuries by uncountable diligent minds across civilization - toward the 'wild speculation' camp, then it effectively levels the playing field between those who are educated in science - and those who have lots of opinions.

    On the field of Making Shit Up and Doing As One Pleases, everyone gets an equal chance at the ball.

    Which is why this thread is in the Free Thoughts Forum, not the the Actual Science forums. If this were in the Actual Science Forums, many contributors would literally burst into flames.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    That is not to say there isn't a time and place and method for setting aside the axioms by which we progress in science.

    Just like there is a time and place and method for crossing a busy highway on foot. Don't do it on a whim. You'll get smished.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Anyway, this is doubly a non-issue. Superluminal recession was always a part of GR.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page