Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Sep 10, 2016.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What does this have to do with your claim that Einstein was wrong?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Well nothing can travel faster than light ; as you know .

    So galaxies going faster than the speed of light is .....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    ... something that has been explained to you at least four times (once with a video) in this thread.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    what video .
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    More dishonesty.
    The fact that you (allegedly) can't find that video does NOT relieve of the guilt of ignoring all the other posts where it has been explained.
    But, since it's you (i.e. dishonest and/ or stupid) I'll tell you that it was post #14 and quoted (i.e. duplicated) in post #15.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    • Repeatedly ignoring information that has been presented to you, while also refusing to support your own claims, amounts to trolling. Please avoid such behaviour in future.
    ad hoc theory
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    No, science.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    No , science
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    NO science ; yet the evidence is real .
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Can I ask for a recap of the issue?

    Is this about the TV show?
    Is this about River finding out that superluminal recession has been understood almost since the inception of GR?
    Is this about the belief that 'nothing can travel faster than light' is violated by superluminal recession?

    Cosmological expansion results in gravitationally-unbound objects receding from reach other. At the limits, we and and do observe galaxies receding at faster-than-light velocities. Relativity forbids local objects moving with respect to each other from moving faster than c, but says nothing about the expansion of space.

    With that said, is there still something unresolved?
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The "issue" here, as far as I can tell it, is a non-issue... we are being trolled. I refuse to believe River truly does not grasp what has been explained to him/her (multiple times by multiple people) ... at this juncture, I would advise simply to not feed into it and disregard further obfuscation by river and continue with the thread proper.

    To that - here is a question I was wondering; as space expands, and carries things (galaxies, et al) within it's local space along at speed... is there a threshold at which you would "fall out" of that pocket, or is this a gradual reduction in... well, no motion but yeah motion? Ugh, I'm not sure if I'm explaining my question well:

    Lets turn this into a much simpler hypothetical (and I'm going to preface this with a request for suspension of disbelief given the impossibilities in my hypothetical situation).

    Make the universe flat - utterly planar. You are "above" it looking down, viewing it as it expands outward. It is my understanding that things on the outward edges are moving faster (and accelerating?). Now, the speed at which we (from our vantage point outside the expansion of the universe itself) see them travelling is faster than they (within the expansion of the fabric of the universe) experience (which keeps things nicely within the whole of GR).

    My question is... is there a point where an object can "fall out" of this area of expansion? Think of it like, I dunno, throwing a ball from a moving car - velocity is imparted by the movement of the vehicle, but also by the force of the throw. In this instance, would there be a "velocity" imparted by the expansion of the universe, and what kind of effect would it have on the object "falling out" of that pocket of expansion?

    I can only imagine if such a thing were to happen, the tidal forces as various parts of that object cross the threshold and fall into "slower" space would be tremendous?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    One analogy is that of gluing pennies to an inflating balloon.

    As the balloon expands, the pennies get farther and farther apart, but the pennies don't grow or break up.

    The pennies represent gravitationally-bound objects - atoms, planets, whole galaxies, even clusters. The force keeping the pennies as a solid objects is much stronger than the weak force trying to pull them apart (the glue, attaching the pennies to the balloon). This is why atoms, planets and galaxies do not succumb to the weak expansion force.

    The analogy isn't perfect; if it were, the pennies could move about on the surface of the balloon - though no penny could move relative to another penny faster than c (How could any penny acquire such a velocity, since it can't accelerate to c?).

    That does not stop the balloon from expanding. If the balloon is large enough, very distant pennies would be observed recede from each other at a velocity greater than c, though local pennies never exceed c relative to each other.

    The analogy also serves to show that there is no edge, and no preferred reference point. Every penny sees itself as the centre of the balloon - from which all other pennies recede.
     
    Daecon likes this.
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    ah, OK - that makes a lot of sense actually! would be curious (and... probably terrifying) to behold a viewpoint in a closed loop universe during a "big crunch" heh
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Yes, it makes. Analogies are given when the actual is difficult to comprehend. They sometimes give a false sense of cover to the theory. A person who understands the issue, does not require analogies, these are meant for those who may find it difficult to understand the original, for them analogies are easy to decipher, but there is a huge possibility of instant blockade of curiousity. All the three wide spread analogies that is rubber sheet for warping, penny balloon and raisins cake are bad, but helps in getting wide spread acceptance of
    the original.

    If you see the discussion, that inudes your grunting post, then you will realize that Gravitational bound systems offset this expansion. You will also see that this expansion is not magic, some kind of force field is also conceptualized, that means need to do some work. So, it is very obvious that any action which can be countered by a field (gravity) and which requires energy, then such action cannot cause super luminal speeds. Am I wrong here ?

    Merely pushing a thing that oh, its space expansion, not some material object, should not stop you from not asking tough questions.

    Another pertinent point is, GR talks of spacetime, someone pushed incessantly that space and time individually will go to oblivion and only entity left would be spacetime. So why this convenient 'space' appearing again and again? Why it has not gone to oblivion as yet? Expansion of spacetime??

    If you are further interested, then please note that after the very very very high speed inflation.....many many powers beyond superluminal....as the gravity took over there was deceleration..... And then again this deceleration changed to accelerated expansion. What does it suggest? A tussel between two force fields. And we do not know nothing about one of them and still claim that it can cause superluminal expansion. I disagree. Even the top physicists are finding inflation, unacceptable.

    So yes, the analogy makes a lot of sense, not what it intends to explain.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    What is the evidence in support of super luminal recession velocity? Very high red shift. The explanation is photon stretches when spacetime expands. No one knows how a photon stretches, and ideally it should stretch 3D why only in the line if site? But mainstream says so.

    So I have a simple food for thought. Say that the red shift is a function of distance between observer and source. But this will not be accepted, because this observation must be explained keeping Big Bang Monster in mind. Thats why alternatives are kept aside.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    The most flawed assumption which is leading to such nonsense as super luminal recession speed is that

    The light wavelength will not change if there is no expansion. (ignoring relative velocity change). At earth we have some property of vacuum like permeability and permittivity values, why do we assume that they will be same 10 billions light years away?
     
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I trust you will provide a source for this claim?

    Preferably one who isn't a crank or a crackpot, of course.
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paul J Steinhardt....that alone should speak volumes.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Time to move this thread to Pseudoscience?
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Oh yeah, the time has come....
     

Share This Page