Universe Expansion

Farsight said:
Meanwhile JamesR bans me from posting in the science forums. Because my posts are knowledgeable and laden with bona-fide references. Because I know more physics than him.
Click to expand...
Actually, Farsight has been restricted from posting to our Science subforums after repeatedly posting pseudoscience (his own "theories") to those sections. This follows a prior exclusion period for the same thing.

Farsight had the opportunity to change his ways, but he decided to repeat his previous behaviour instead. He cannot be surprised that the outcome was the same as last time. Having had his chance, this time the exclusion is permanent. Farsight is still free to post his "alternative" theories to the appropriate forum, of course. We will keep the Science subforums for discussions of science.
 
hansda said:
We know that our universe is expanding, as observed by Edwin Hubble.

Is this expansion spherical, ie radial expansion in all directions?

OR, this expansion is spiral, as if a coiled spring is uncoiling?
Click to expand...

If one was on the other side of our galaxy , what would they view ?
 
river said:
If one was on the other side of our galaxy , what would they view ?
Click to expand...
The same thing.
Expansion occurs on scales much larger than galaxies.
Everything in the Milky Way's neighborhood of a few hundred million light years is gravitationally-bound, and so is not expanding. When you scale up to distances where expansion can be observed, it's so far away that it looks identical from anywhere in (or anywhere near) our galaxy.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The same thing.
Expansion occurs on scales much larger than galaxies.
Everything in the Milky Way's neighborhood of a few hundred million light years is gravitationally-bound, and so is not expanding. When you scale up to distances where expansion can be observed, it's so far away that it looks identical from anywhere in (or anywhere near) our galaxy.
Click to expand...

Now scale it up too , thousands of galaxies , from their point of view . From any angle .
 
river said:
True but not true

from my post #284 it is a complete thought and perspective .
Click to expand...
You really shouldn't need a half dozen posts to explain a single thought.
It would really help this forum if you finished at least one complete thought per post, at a minimum.
You're getting left behind.
Later.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You really shouldn't need a half dozen posts to explain a single thought.
It would really help this forum if you finished at least one complete thought per post, at a minimum.
You're getting left behind.
Later.
Click to expand...

DaveC426913 said:
You really shouldn't need a half dozen posts to explain a single thought.
It would really help this forum if you finished at least one complete thought per post, at a minimum.
You're getting left behind.
Later.
Click to expand...

What does post # 284 miss ?
 
James R said:
Actually, Farsight has been restricted from posting to our Science subforums after repeatedly posting pseudoscience (his own "theories") to those sections. This follows a prior exclusion period for the same thing. Farsight had the opportunity to change his ways, but he decided to repeat his previous behaviour instead. He cannot be surprised that the outcome was the same as last time. Having had his chance, this time the exclusion is permanent. Farsight is still free to post his "alternative" theories to the appropriate forum, of course. We will keep the Science subforums for discussions of science.
Click to expand...
I don't post pseudoscience. As you know full well from my posts. For example there's this post, this post, and this post. Or this post where I gave no less than five Einstein quotes. That isn't pseudoscience. That's bona-fide science. And you are censoring bona-fide science whilst promoting pseudoscience and ignorance and giving encouragement to abusive trolls.
 
Farsight said:
I don't post pseudoscience. As you know full well from my posts. For example there's this post, this post, and this post. Or this post where I gave no less than five Einstein quotes. That isn't pseudoscience. That's bona-fide science. And you are censoring bona-fide science whilst promoting pseudoscience and ignorance and giving encouragement to abusive trolls.
Click to expand...
Hm. This is analogous to a crotch-grabber being banned from the women's locker room after 73 crotches grabbed, saying "I don't grab crotches. Here's a list of 3 crotches I have not grabbed." :rolleyes:
 
Farsight said:
I don't post pseudoscience. As you know full well from my posts. For example there's this post, this post, and this post. Or this post where I gave no less than five Einstein quotes. That isn't pseudoscience. That's bona-fide science. And you are censoring bona-fide science whilst promoting pseudoscience and ignorance and giving encouragement to abusive trolls.
Click to expand...
Almost invariably, it turns out either that you misunderstand what Einstein has written, or else Einstein is talking about something a bit different to what you're trying to use his quotes for.
 
James R said:
Almost invariably, it turns out either that you misunderstand what Einstein has written, or else Einstein is talking about something a bit different to what you're trying to use his quotes for.
Click to expand...
That's a downright lie and you know it. Just as you know that you're censoring good science whilst promoting pseudoscience and abusive trolls. Just as you know that this quote is crystal clear:

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

DaveC426913 said:
Hm. This is analogous to a crotch-grabber being banned from the women's locker room after 73 crotches grabbed, saying "I don't grab crotches. Here's a list of 3 crotches I have not grabbed." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It isn't analogous to crotch-grabbing at all. Check my posts to confirm that. Einstein said what he said, there's no misunderstanding at all. JamesR is determined to censor it with false accusations.
 
Farsight said:
Einstein said what he said, there's no misunderstanding at all.
Click to expand...
Einstein did not always say things that are part of current mainstream science. His work is now a century old, and a lot of good work has been done to refine it since then.
"he said things" is not license to assert non-mainstream science.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Einstein did not always say things that are part of current mainstream science. His work is now a century old, and a lot of good work has been done to refine it since then. "he said things" is not license to assert non-mainstream science.
Click to expand...
Einstein wasn't wrong, and he didn't spout pseudoscience. Nor did Irwin Shapiro:

"Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2×10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun. Such a change, equivalent to 60 km in distance, could now be measured over the required path length to within about 5 to 10% with presently obtainable equipment".

Professor Ned Wright doesn't spout pseudoscience either. Nor does Don Koks the PhysicsFAQ editor. Nor do I. I'm afraid what you think of as "current mainstream science" is popscience pseudoscience. Whose advocates, such as James R, will happily censor genuine physics on specious grounds.
 
Farsight said:
Einstein wasn't wrong, and he didn't spout pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
Of course Einstein was wrong, and of course he didn't 'spout pseudoscience'. He was wrong about the quantum world, but hey nobody is perfect. Being incorrect about quantum mechanics in no way diminishes his incredible contributions (even to QM!). He simply was not infallible.
 
origin said:
Of course Einstein was wrong, and of course he didn't 'spout pseudoscience'. He was wrong about the quantum world, but hey nobody is perfect. Being incorrect about quantum mechanics in no way diminishes his incredible contributions (even to QM!). He simply was not infallible.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the cosmological constant.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top