Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,059 Year: 5,316/9,624 Month: 341/323 Week: 185/160 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 327 of 410 (459627)
03-08-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by tesla
03-08-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Pea size
Tesla, you might as well give up. Nothing you said in this thread has made an inkling of sense so far. I guess cosmology isn't your thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:41 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 9:36 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 332 of 410 (459647)
03-09-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Zucadragon
03-09-2008 7:28 AM


Re: Pea size
Is this correct ?
Yes. Except for the word surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Zucadragon, posted 03-09-2008 7:28 AM Zucadragon has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 336 of 410 (459676)
03-09-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by cavediver
03-09-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Pea size
I objected to the word surface because it can give the false impression that there is a bulk of empty space bounded by that surface. In the often used analogy where the universe is a globe and time is the north-south direction, the use of the word surface might give the impression that the interior of the globe has some significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 10:25 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 1:02 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 338 of 410 (459681)
03-09-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by tesla
03-09-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Pea size
The idea that "nothing is moving" and just "the fabric expanding" does not seem to be supported by meteors and planets.
You are right. Meteors, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, etc..., everything is moving. That is not the kind of movement that is explained by the expansion of the universe. The expansion explains the movement in a much larger scale. As cavediver explained above, only in the scale of galaxy clusters the expansion of the universe becomes aparent.
The relative speed from our point of view as being "faster than light speed" Is more than likely a trick of the eye, If we do not have the proper math to evaluate the true speed relative to our own.
You are still traped inside a non-relativistic frame of mind. That's not how things work. There is no such thing as true velocity. All velocities are measured relative to something else.
Besides, even if you compound two movements, the final observed speed is never larger then the speed of light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 12:29 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:16 PM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 344 of 410 (459692)
03-09-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by tesla
03-09-2008 1:16 PM


Re: Pea size
Then why is it taught that the universe is expanding faster than light speed? From what viewpoint is this being viewed for its validity in relativity?
A universe expanding faster then the speed of light is not in contradiction with relativity because, as we explained above, what we are observing is the expansion of space itself, as oposed to relative movement of two objects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:16 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:49 PM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 347 of 410 (459699)
03-09-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Percy
03-09-2008 1:35 PM


The Hubble constant, the rate of expansion of the universe, is approximately 71 kilometers/second/megaparsec. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers/second. Since recession velocity is proportional to distance, doing the math tells us that objects separated from each other by more than 4,222,428 megaparsecs (8 1025 miles or 1.3 1013 light years) are receding from each other at a speed greater than that of light.
Percy, I think you introduced a factor of 1000 somewhere in there by accident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:59 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 348 of 410 (459700)
03-09-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Percy
03-09-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Pea size
ALERT*** British Sarcasm ***ALERT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 1:38 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:57 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 356 of 410 (459715)
03-09-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by tesla
03-09-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Pea size
I could accept this proposal if we could see the waters edge, But we have never found any end to the space to know if it is space expanding
You have an uncanny gift to get things backwards. An explosion -- your model -- would have a front. Space doesn't have to have an edge.
The fact that we do not see an edge is evidence against your model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 1:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 2:41 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 366 of 410 (459763)
03-09-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by tesla
03-09-2008 6:04 PM


Re: I conclude with thanks
Tesla, when I was a PhD student, my advisor once told me that receives about one email a month from somebody that claims to have a revolutionary theory. There is no arguing with that kind of people. They refuse to accept that there is A LOT about science they don't understand and that is completely unreasonable for them to expect they can revolutionize it from outside. We call these people cranks.
What makes you think you are any different?
here there is a list (incomplete I'm sure) of cranky websites rated from fringe to crankiest. May be you can find something that looks like your theory somewhere in there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 6:04 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by tesla, posted 03-09-2008 7:18 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5627 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 388 of 410 (459841)
03-10-2008 8:23 AM


For those that would like to understand better the difference between an expanding universe and simple relative motion between the galaxies, there is a good explanation here. Note that you can always pass from one point of view to the other through a change of coordinates, but that change of coordinates is valid only locally and that's why the former point of view is to be prefered when talking about the whole universe.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024