Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

And what will you say once you have their response?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It will be interesting to see what fabricated nonsense you arrive at.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is my understanding that on the local level, expansion of space is compensated for by gravitational attraction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, I appreciate your frank opinion.

Paddoboy seems to be saying #2, that is no expansion, while you are with #1 that is expansion is there but gets compensated by gravity.

I will wait for DaveC response..

 

It's not a matter of opinion.

Why are you asking us? Why don't you just read up on it a little? Pretty hard to have a considered stance on the matter if you're letting us be your source of truth.

 

I am quite surprised at your response. What stops you from choosing one of the two options? You are free to add a third one of your choice.

You are advocating this expansion and even boasted that you know it like you know the high school geometry, so why this shakiness now?

 

You want to join? you can also try.

 

Dudes, this guy is insane. Do not engage.

 

Well I thought you are keeping me on ignore, PhysBang, PHD. Thats ok, I can understand this kind of fake posturing.

Please tell me what is so insane about such a simple question? Mod Kitamaru did not find it insane, he responded it. Why Paddoboy and DaveC are avoiding? And BTW, you are welcome to attempt the question.

 

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion - to me, his post, and particularly this line, reads that gravity is preventing the expansion from occurring:

So it would seem Paddoboy and I are answering the same, would it not?

 

Since Paddoboy instead of answering gave a link. The link says that it is in entirety and cannot be observed from external, at the best it is ambiguous.

He certainly is bringing in Gravity but both the options are distinct. Absense of expansion in presence of gravity and compensation of expansion by gravity...both are distinct options. Let him clarify.

 

Kitamaru,

I missed your use of words.

Preventing the expansion and compensating the expansion are two different things.

You have used the word compensation earlier, now you are using preventing?

 

From what I understand, gravity does not prevent local space from expanding: rather, it simply prevents the bodies (in this case, the items in the solar system) from being carried along with it - think of it like a boat tied to a pier along a river. The boat is still being "pushed on" by the current, but its moorings prevent it from moving... in much the same way, I imagine Gravity holds things to their proper orbits despite the "current" of cosmic expansion.

 

This thread is over 200 posts, and it explains CE. You don't like the outcome, so you are attempting to reframe the debate as if you are holding high court - as if it hasn't been answered unless you say so.
You're not interested in the answer; you're simply interesting in arguing.

Respond however you will; it matters naught.

 

Because since your foray into this forum, any question you have asked has never been genuine and you have never had any intention to accept any answer that conflicts with your own preconceived agenda.

Why are you unable to see that either of your points are actually the same...eg: if density is such at local levels, then the overall expansion of spacetime is negated, decoupled, or even compensated for, if you prefer that word.

As I have continually explained to you, and as Dave has shown above, most on this forum are awake to the lack of genuine nature in any of your questionings and subsequently your credibility.

 

Ahhh, semantics again and proving my previous point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In essence just the usual faith based denial as directed by your overlords.

 

All here, except for yourself and another who was banned, have a reasonable grasp on the situation, despite your continued attempts at pedantic semantics.
But once again, if you believe it is anything other then what all are trying to explain to you, then write up a paper, and get it peer reviewed....you may yet be in Stockholm in a couple of months!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not sure about insanity, that's rather harsh...perhaps as per any fanatically religious person, that has had a particular doctrine drilled into him from birth, he is gullible and impressionable.
Either way I believe that any nonsense, even that put in pseudoscience, should be shown for what it is.

 

I disagree. This guy has an agenda to promote whatever weird idea is in his head. He got this from himself, not anywhere else. No new information is going to change this.

 

Beating around the bush. Thats the point even after 200 posts and flippant boasting, you are not sure what is this expansion all about.

 

1. Reasonable grasp? No I do not think, many here who support mainstream vehemently and tend to lecture, unfortunately have very little idea about the subject.

2. Thanks, I am certainly not insane.

3. You are wrong, I do not mix up science with religion, and I have no agenda. If you give a single evidence wherein I broached religion in science, I will apologize and pack up. Actually this is your dishonest propaganda against me.

4. Impressionable, gullible? Me ?
You must be joking or is it poor assessment capability of yours?