Galaxies going faster than light ?

This is quite well established.

The expanskon of space is weak. It works between gravitationally unbound objects. MW and A are gravitationally bound. So are all the galaxies in our cluster.

But on scales larger than galactic clusters, the expansion of space is stronger than gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pl refer to the last line of your post...

1. Between Andromeda and MW there is no expansion, but between MW and some very very remote Galaxy there is. The conclusion is that there should be a Galaxy of appropriate mass at appropriate distancedistance with which MW will be at no expansion, no contraction ?

2. Recession between galaxies is no work / force deal, if so FTL would be a problem, but gravitation contraction is. How do you neutralize such expansion with force contraction?

3. Hubble expansion formula has no gravity term?

4. From whatever you have written, you see that given a distance x, the expansion should depend on the mass (due to gravity). For example if I have two galaxies on either side of earth at very large distance x, the mass of one is m and the mass of other is few million times larger, then expansion should be different? This is not the theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein's GR theory predicts cosmological expansion, by following the math. It is inherent in the theory, though Einstein did not at first see it.
No one said Einstein was aware from the start that it predicted expansion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certianly. Well, not galaxies, but galactic superclusters. Some are approaching each other, some are receding.


Expansion is weak enough that it manifests only when gravitational attraction is so weak as to be virtually non-existent. This only happens on scales larger than superclusters.

 

Pl let me know, where you stand? Why you think FTL recession is ok...based on my understanding of your understanding I will answer your "why".

 

They are difficult to answer. Still you can tell me which question you have not understood, I will elaborate.

 

I have not opined either way - I simply want to know what evidence you have to support your contention that inflationary theory is in error. Please elaborate...

 

I would put it the other way around.

Please elaborate what you don't understand about superluminal recession at cosmological scales.

 

So, both of you can attempt to answer the questions in #98.

 

They are answered by post #97, 100.

You will find that, starting with that as the model, the questions will have answers.

 

Is it ? You could not even parse the questions, leave aside answering then. I am inclined to say that you do not understand the subject in hand.

 

Is anyone else getting irritated with our neighbor's seemingly absolute refusal to answer direct questions?

 

Not me, I put him on ignore ages ago. I'm not sure why he is even allowed to post anymore, since he routinely lies about the content of scientific theories and attacks other posters.

 

If you are referring to me, then it is in bad taste. You are creating a scene after failing miserably about the definition of truth. And of course, try #98, DaveC could not parse it.


PS: you all have questions in #98, try them under FTL.

 

Dr. Physbang?

You had to ignore me after your poor boasting of being a PHD was exposed. It is PhD not PHD, and your posts do not reflect that kind of education, you may be a PhD in some unrelated field, may be I can grant that concession to you.


PS: if you have me on ignore, how do you know it was me. Either you are a liar or is it lurking around? I think you are a liar.

 

He seems to be happy with this site and the mods happy with him.
Members can stick him on ignore.

 

Honestly speaking I see lot of scope for improvement on this site. To start with restricting such unwarranted baiting posts.

There is certainly a bunch of mediocre enthusiasts like you who are holding this site from becoming a better place for open and honest discussion.

 

How about this - we will answer your questions if and when you answer any of ours, sound good?

 

Ok, I have listed my question in #98, you list yours. But try answering all, I promise I will answer all your relevant questions.

And BTW it does not befit a Mod to gang up like this....."we will answer your questions......".

 

In other words, you have no intention of answering these questions... you are making your intent seem less and less to be about discussing actual science in good faith.