Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

The God said:
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.
Click to expand...

So many words used to say so little...

You appear to be claiming the analogy is fundamentally flawed, and yet once again you have not provided a shred of evidence (or, in this case, even a reasonable alternative) to it...

I think pseduo sounds like a good place for this at this point, since the thread seems incapable of being kept in a real-science standing...
 
Kittamaru said:
So many words used to say so little...

You appear to be claiming the analogy is fundamentally flawed, and yet once again you have not provided a shred of evidence (or, in this case, even a reasonable alternative) to it...

I think pseduo sounds like a good place for this at this point, since the thread seems incapable of being kept in a real-science standing...
Click to expand...

I did not say that analogy is fundamentally flawed. I said that analogy is fine, it is just that the concept which this analogy intends to convey is flawed. And I also asserted that many people will understand the analogy and based on that claim that they have faultlessly understood and accepted the intended issue.

You also observed incorrectly about my note giving the alternative, I did give an alternative in my post #75.
 
The God said:
For future reference: Any thread which attempts to push the super luminal speeds for galaxies should be ideally in cesspool or at the best pseudo.
Click to expand...
And the trolling continues.
Why the mods put up with you is beyond me.
 
origin said:
And the trolling continues.
Why the mods put up with you is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I am quite surprised at you, Do you really keep me on ignore or it is just the posture? Sorry, you failed to answer the relevant questions. You can try them now. Crying foul to Mods everytime for unwarranted reasons is not done thing.
 
The God said:
For future reference: Any thread which attempts to push the super luminal speeds for galaxies should be ideally in cesspool or at the best pseudo.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that? Are you claiming that superluminal speeds for galaxies are impossible? On what basis?
 
James R said:
Why do you say that? Are you claiming that superluminal speeds for galaxies are impossible? On what basis?
Click to expand...

Good point.
You see the recession cause is some kind of energy, once you talk of energy, you are talking about work done. Moreover space is not something empty..it certainly has certain physical properties. How do you explain energy which can cause super luminal speeds? Secondly as I asked in earlier posts, any orbital motion may have stability issue if the space between them is expanding. The stability of orbits suggests either very very critical balancing aspect between gravity and expansion even for orbital motion or expansion is not at all there. Logically the blue shift of andromeda can be accepted because MW and Andromeda are closing in faster than expansion but what about sattelite galaxies orbiting MW, if the space between them is expanding, then either they have to fall back due to gravity very precisely thus compensating expansion or very soon they will part off from MW. How do you explain this perpetual maintaining of orbits in presence of space expansion?
 
Last edited:
The God said:
any orbital motion may have stability issue if the space between them is expanding. The stability of orbits suggests either very very critical balancing aspect between gravity and expansion even for orbital motion or expansion is not at all there.
Click to expand...
As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects. It doesn't have any measurable affect on galaxy clusters, let alone galaxies, let alone stellar or planetary orbits.

The fact that you continue to ignore this is troubling.

The God said:
Logically the blue shift of andromeda can be accepted because MW and Andromeda are closing in faster than expansion but what about sattelite galaxies orbiting MW, if the space between them is expanding, then either they have to fall back due to gravity very precisely thus compensating expansion or very soon they will part off from MW.
Click to expand...
As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects.

The God said:
How do you explain this perpetual maintaining of orbits in presence of space expansion?
Click to expand...
As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects.

Now that you know this, incorporate this into subsequent responses. (If there are any, that is. This should actually resolve the whole issue, obviating the need for further posting.)
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects. It doesn't have any measurable affect on galaxy clusters, let alone galaxies, let alone stellar or planetary orbits.

The fact that you continue to ignore this is troubling.


As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects.


As has been explained multiple times, cosmological expansion is far too weak to affect gravitationally-bound objects.

Now that you know this, incorporate this into subsequent responses. (If there are any, that is. This should actually resolve the whole issue, obviating the need for further posting.)
Click to expand...

Quite a silly post.

You apparently agreed to origin's response. What he stated? As I understood him, between Andromeda and MW there is expansion but gravitation approach towards each other is higher so effectively the distance is decreasing. This is fine because they are not in orbital motion.

Now please tell me, instead of repeating the same funny statement three times, What would happen if earth-sun distance increases due to expansion? Gravity is causing orbital motion, while expansion is causing distance between two to increase. How to maintain stability?


PS: you posted somewhere that you are not a physics guy, but interested. So I urge you to google for "orbital stability under spacetime expansion". Please study that and mark a copy to origin and this PHysbang.
 
Last edited:
The God said:
Now please tell me, instead of repeating the same funny statement three times, What would happen if earth-sun distance increases due to expansion? Gravity is causing orbital motion, while expansion is causing distance between two to increase. How to maintain stability?
Click to expand...
Gravity is simply overcoming whatever it is [DE] that is causing spacetime over larger less dense scales to expand.
What prevents the spacetime expansion also tearing apart the Sun and planets, and even you and I? Viola! the strong, weak, that operate over those scales, and the EMF also.
But I don't really expect you to understand or to go along with that.
 
The God said:
What would happen if earth-sun distance increases due to expansion?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Cosmological expansion is effectively zero at any scale smaller than galactic clusters.

You might as well ask why we don't factor the Casimir Effect into our orbital calculations.

This has been explained multiple times. I asked you to incorporate this newfound knowledge of yours into your posts; you have not.
 
The God said:
PS: you posted somewhere that you are not a physics guy, but interested. So I urge you to google for "orbital stability under spacetime expansion".
Click to expand...
And here we go again. :rolleyes:

The God, I urge YOU to do some research and learn about physics instead of being wrong all the time.
 
The God said:
to google for "orbital stability under spacetime expansion". Please study that and mark a copy to origin and this PHysbang.
Click to expand...
Googling is insufficient for knowledge gathering, especially in science. It happily returns as much nonsense as real science. Now, if you'd produce a reputable source that addresses this issue, I'd entertain it.
 
paddoboy said:
Gravity is simply overcoming whatever it is [DE] that is causing spacetime over larger less dense scales to expand.
What prevents the spacetime expansion also tearing apart the Sun and planets, and even you and I? Viola! the strong, weak, that operate over those scales, and the EMF also.
But I don't really expect you to understand or to go along with that.
Click to expand...

I u derstand but you don't. DE is not for expansion, it is for accelerated expansion.

And secondly basic physics says that if this is countered by strong or weak of yours then it is there, and if it is there it must manifest.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Googling is insufficient for knowledge gathering, especially in science. It happily returns as much nonsense as real science. Now, if you'd produce a reputable source that addresses this issue, I'd entertain it.
Click to expand...

Then you can stay with whatever you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top