And you still can't help yourself with the condescending bullshit and wonder why I save my science discussion for better forums...
Galaxies going faster than light ?
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
Better forums? Which forum you grace with your science? Pl share.
Truth is hardly immutable and stable... the progression of medical technology and techniques alone should be proof of that. Or, how about dietary guidelines - how many times have those "facts" changed just in the last three or four decades?
Do you have any evidence to back this claim up... or is this just more of your posturing? Honestly, you have yet to post anything of substance in terms of backing evidence... and then wonder why nobody is taking you seriously.
That, and your constant "passive aggressive insults" are tiring, especially when it is you who is lacking substance. You scoff repeatedly at volumes of established scientific evidence compiled by those far more educated than you or I, and then claim you "know better" and that we, by accepting what these people (many of which have dedicates their lives to these endeavors), are merely guilty of an appeal to authority fallacy... an appeal to authority is credible and valid when said authority has the evidence to back their statements up (or do you also feel that expert testimony in courts is worthless?)
1. So, let's refer to cc of Einstein which even Einstein thought of as biggest blunder, and then it got revived. This amply demonstrates that FTL recession was not thought of from day one of GR.
2. Truth may be epoch specific, but truth even if required to be referred with era, then it is stable and immutable. For example it is truth that you are a moderator here on 14th Sep 2016. This is stable and immutable.
It is a proposition and widely accepted theory (but not the truth) that a mass warps the spacetime around it, this is not immutable because this is falsifiable. Some people incorrectly may refer this as true reality.
Whatever you are referring regarding medical science is scientific propositions, they are like FTL recession of galaxies, an acceptable proposition today, but may not be the reality. Why don't you start a thread on 'truth', you appear to be mixing truth with theories and propositions.
Rest all of your post is not befitting a Mod. Give me a single post of Daecon which has any substance. He keeps this forum in bad light and admittedly never posts anything science here, he just trolls. What kind of respect should I give him, ignore?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
The above link will give a fairly good idea, that Einstein did not know about the expansion of universe when he proposed GR. So those who are claiming that FTL recession of galaxies was always the part of GR are spreading misinformation.
The above link will give a fairly good idea, that Einstein did not know about the expansion of universe when he proposed GR. So those who are claiming that FTL recession of galaxies was always the part of GR are spreading misinformation.
Thats the prevalent interpretation of observed red shift, widely accepted. This may or may not be true. IMO it is not true.
Why?
I am guessing by cc you mean the Cosmological Constant? If so:
In the book "Einstein", Walter Isaacson states on page 254:
Then, on page 255:
Additionally, we have this:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_problem_with_the_cosmological_constant
To me, it appears that Einstein arrived at nearly the correct conclusion, even if his data was incomplete. This makes sense in a way - he simply did not have the tools necessary to "see" what we can now. None the less, it appears that he was able to discern that "something" was preventing gravity from simply collapsing the universe. Then, we have this:
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-einstein-conversion-static-universe.html
Ultimately, it appears that for a short time, Einstein did/would have resisted the idea of superluminal velocities as an idea, but ultimately relented. None the less, GR does not appear to prevent FTL expansion of space... so I'm not really sure why this is becoming an argument? Or am I reading too deeply into something here?
Let me make sure I understand you correctly - you are admitting that "truth" can be reached, understood, and then later superseded by better evidence acquired with better observation tools / methods / technology, but at the same time claiming that that very same "truth" will not change, or was never "truth" in the first place?
I would hardly say those are "trolling"... and a simple glance through his posting history of just the last month shows plenty of contribution.
How is it not true if we are observing it now?
Let me see. I presume that you accept this. So please tell why do you accept it? What makes you think that there is FTL recession at very large distance, and there is no recession between Milky Way and Andromeda? Some people will tell you Gravity between MW and Andromeda, how?
Why would you presume that? I asked you a straight up question - do you not have an answer?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Guys. This thread is not about the various interpretations and definitions of truth.
This thread is about objects receding at faster than c.
We observe. That's what we have to work with in this thread. Talk about observations and models. Truth or otherwise, while an interesting discussion for another time, is off-topic.
Please stay on topic.
This thread is about objects receding at faster than c.
We observe. That's what we have to work with in this thread. Talk about observations and models. Truth or otherwise, while an interesting discussion for another time, is off-topic.
Please stay on topic.
1. So, your references now confirms that FTL expansion was not in the minds of Einstein when he proposed GR in 1915.
2. The definition of truth which you have given is what you hold, not me. I am repeating you are confusing between acceptance of scientific theories and truth. As I said FTL recession is accepted scientific theory, it cannot be termed as 'truth'. Warping of spacetime is accepted scientific theory, it cannot be termed as 'truth'. You are a Mod here on 15th Sep 2016, it is truth.
I give you one more example...
A. When initially I looked at your avatar and your posting style, I thought you were a female. It is quite likely that few others would have also thought in similar lines. Later on based on one of your post I abandoned that position. So was it true that you were a female? No. So extend this and understand that truth is immutable, non falsifiable while scientific theories are mutable and falsifiable.....
You are a Mod, pl get some support from some one else against what I am saying to sustain your position.
Last edited:
Wait, that is what you are arguing? I thought you were claiming that FTL expansion is incompatible with GR?... now I'm confused.
Except that isn't "what I hold"... that's the commonly accepted definition of the word, worldwide. You cannot redefine a word on a whim...
So what you are claiming is that we simply don't know the truth...? In that case, what do you call what we believe to be true based on examination, experimentation, and evaluation? It certainly isn't false...
Irrelevant red-herring - 1) my being a mod has no bearing in this context whatsoever. 2) As it stands, you are attempting to redefine a word in the English language to suit your view of what it should mean... I believe Oxford and Merriam Webster would like to have a few words with you about that.
Hotty? Let me know if you are with FTL, then why? Merely because it is accepted position or it is mainstream and you are also convinced after analyzing it critically. If you are not with this, then we can share why we are not with FTL.
Please dig deeper than merely stating Gravity is countering the same...? The same what?
The answer is simple, and it IS gravity... gravity is stronger than the expansion forces at "local" levels. In this case, the gravitational center of our local group within the Virgo Supercluster (which includes the Milky Way and Andromeda) lies somewhere between the two galaxies. This makes sense - Andromeda is THE largest galaxy of our local group, and the Milky Way is the second largest - as I'm sure you well know, the force of gravitational attraction increases with the mass of the objects (Force = Gravitational Constant x (Mass1 x Mass2 over Distance between the objects)
Given we are talking about some rather big objects (the two largest galaxies in our local cluster), plus the fact that Andromeda has a few satellite galaxies, an the Milky Way has a few satellite galaxies (including the fourth largest galaxy in the local cluster), it makes sense that all that mass would result in a powerful attraction at the relatively short range between us (relative to the greater scale of the Virgo cluster, or the universe at large).
I fail to see where stating that "gravity" is the reason is somehow wrong...
I'm confused - perhaps English is not your first language. What does "Hotty" mean in this context? What is the relevance of me being "with FTL"? More to the point, what does that even mean?
My question was a follow up to your response to Dinosaur:
[emphasis mine] So again, why? What evidence do you offer as to why it is not true?
Sorry, Kittamaru you are confused on both the counts.
1. My point regarding FTL was that it was not considered from day one even in mainstream, Physbang tried to push it since 1915 and DaveC also called it Mundane and always a part of GR. I was arguing the incorrect chronology of mainstream view as held by these posters.
2. Truth definition which you are attempting to push, is not the definition. You are having incorrect notion. That wiki definition is more or less ok, it is just that you are confusing with that "emerging truth" reference in that definition. Repeat..Truth is not falsifiable....pl tell me which definition of truth claims that "truth" is falsifiable?
- Status