Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]

river said:
The thing is though ; NASA being fundamentally mainstream is saying that either galaxies or something is travelling faster than the speed of light.

Something to think about is it not ? I think it should be something to think about . It goes against Einstein as you know.
Click to expand...
This thread has ended up in the pseudo section because of such nonsensical claims.
NASA has not said, in any doco that galaxies are travelling at FTL.
They have said that galaxies are cosmologically red shifted, to show a recessional velocity of FTL, due to spacetime expansion.
And it does not go against Einstein: Only anything with mass is forbidden to reach or exceed "c "
river said:
But some just give another perspective on the topic .

Nothing to do with evangelical thinking at all.

river
Click to expand...
Sure it is! Generally when individuals deride/disclaim just about all 21st century cosmology, there is an agenda afoot, and in this relevant case it is a religious agenda or "god of the gaps" crusade. Particularly when they are unable to show any evidence to support whatever concept it is that they are pushing. :)
Again, that's why this is in pseudo! ;)
 
DaveC426913 said:
Because we just went through about two dozen posts explaining why - not only does CE not violate Einstein's relativity - Einstien's relativity actually predicts CE.
Click to expand...
He's trolling (and has been reported as such): it's been explained to him why he's wrong in previous posts.
 
Dywyddyr said:
He's trolling (and has been reported as such): it's been explained to him why he's wrong in previous posts.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see it now. When you review the thread in a compressed timeframe, you can see he's just saying the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?"

Egg's on my face for feeding the troll. :D
 
Last edited:
Kittamaru said:
The God - the space between Andromeda and the Milky Way is expanding... your confusion is in not accounting for the fact that, to make things simple, the space between the two Galaxies is expanding at speed X, where as the force of Gravity is pulling them closer together at 100X or more.

Thus, the two galaxies are moving toward one another at many times the speed at which the distance between them is expanding.

Think of it like a big treadmill. You are standing on one end. On the other end is a glass of milk and cookies. You want the milk and cookies. The treadmill is running at 1 mile per hour, so you jog at 5 miles per hour. Thus you are moving towards the milk and cookies.

Does that make it understandable?
Click to expand...

Kittamaru,

There are two things,
A. Whether I understand what you all are trying to tell me and
B. Whether you all understand what I am trying to say.

Answer to A is in affirmative, you all are talking same thing in different words, that expansion is there even at local scales but gravity pull is higher than space-time expansion, so we do not see the expansion.

Now the none responded to what I asked, I do not see that those who are responding to do not understand the implication of B, but this is being avoided simply because none seems to be equipped to answer B.

I will repeat B, a bit differently.


B. A stone thrown from a height h, is falling towards Earth, so even if expansion is there the rate of fall is much higher and effectively we see reduction in gap not expansion. This is Andromeda vs Milky way example......all fine.

Now consider Moon orbitting Earth. Consider this to be a circular orbit. Ignore other gravitational influences of sun etc which are irrelevant to the argument, if there is expansion between Moon and earth, than by which mechanism this expansion is contained? Because the orbit size is not changing. In case of Andromeda Vs MW, the gap was reducing, but in case of orbital motion this is not the case.

Pl be specific to respond on this, not some irrelevant perturbations.
 
river said:
The thing is though ; NASA being fundamentally mainstream is saying that either galaxies or something is travelling faster than the speed of light.

Something to think about is it not ? I think it should be something to think about . It goes against Einstein as you know.
Click to expand...

No... nothing about this violates what Einstein has said. Your supposed inability to comprehend this simple fact is far exceeding my ability to suspend disbelief, and I can only presume, at this point, you are simply trolling for the sake of trolling.
 
Kittamaru said:
No... nothing about this violates what Einstein has said. Your supposed inability to comprehend this simple fact is far exceeding my ability to suspend disbelief, and I can only presume, at this point, you are simply trolling for the sake of trolling.
Click to expand...

Why ?
 
The God said:
Kittamaru,

There are two things,
A. Whether I understand what you all are trying to tell me and
B. Whether you all understand what I am trying to say.

Answer to A is in affirmative, you all are talking same thing in different words, that expansion is there even at local scales but gravity pull is higher than space-time expansion, so we do not see the expansion.

Now the none responded to what I asked, I do not see that those who are responding to do not understand the implication of B, but this is being avoided simply because none seems to be equipped to answer B.

I will repeat B, a bit differently.


B. A stone thrown from a height h, is falling towards Earth, so even if expansion is there the rate of fall is much higher and effectively we see reduction in gap not expansion. This is Andromeda vs Milky way example......all fine.

Now consider Moon orbitting Earth. Consider this to be a circular orbit. Ignore other gravitational influences of sun etc which are irrelevant to the argument, if there is expansion between Moon and earth, than by which mechanism this expansion is contained? Because the orbit size is not changing. In case of Andromeda Vs MW, the gap was reducing, but in case of orbital motion this is not the case.

Pl be specific to respond on this, not some irrelevant perturbations.
Click to expand...

The amount of spatial expansion that would be experienced on even the scale of a large solar system (even beyond the orbit of Sol and Pluto) would be negligible at best, and essentially indistinguishable from the probability of error on our current calculations. That fact notwithstanding; you are trying to ignore gravity again. An orbit is a complex thing; a careful balancing act of inertial forces (velocity, kinetic energy, etc) and gravitational forces (gravitational attraction between two masses).

Think of it like a table with a fine silk tablecloth. The tablecloth represents the "fabric of the universe". In the center of the table, you have a plate. Tethered to that plate by an elastic band is a saucer. The saucer has a velocity in a straight line, but is held a relatively set distance from the plate by the elastic band, causing it to orbit the plate.

Now, the tablecloth is quickly yanked out from under the plate and saucer. Do they move? Sure, perhaps a tiny bit - but because of inertia and the connection, they find that equilibrium again against such minuscule changes. Same applies on a planetary scale - if the change in distance due to cosmic expansion was sufficient enough, sure - the objects would fall out of orbit (and we would all be dead). As it stands, it isn't.

After all, if gravity is strong enough to overcome cosmic expansion on the scale of distances between the Milky Way and Andromeda, why would it be unable to do so on the scale of something so much smaller as a solar system?
 
river said:
Why ?
Click to expand...
Why what? I believe my post was pretty succinct - simply put, you aren't so ignorant as to be incapable of understanding the multiple ways this was explained... if you are simply refusing to accept them, then explain why you say this is somehow in violation.
 
river said:
Hmm.. I haven't been here for a week or so forgive me if I'm a little behind .

So NASA is right then ?
Click to expand...
NASA has not said anything about this - not in your TV show.
It is a script, written by show writers, that has rewritten - into TV-viewer langauge - what what some scientist said, who was paraphrasing the science.

As I said at the start, don't get your science from TV shows.
 
Kittamaru said:
I think it's quite the opposite - they have. The issue is that, in translating their findings to layman's terms, important information is lost - just look at my own misunderstanding of the meaning for "frame of reference" as a good example of that. To the logic I was using, what I said and inferred from their findings made sense (that from our position, a galaxy may appear to be moving ftl, when in fact it is moving sunlight but the space between it and us is also expanding, resting in a net appearance of ftl travel)

unfortunately, the logic itself was flawed due to my misunderstanding of some of the terminology - it doesn't mean that my reasoning was flawed (based on my available knowledge, the logic was sound) , but the conclusion was still inaccurate because of the lack of understanding on my part.

I don't know if I'm explaining that we'll at all... lol
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... I'm rewatching the video from post # 14 .

He is saying that initially everything was expanding faster than the speed of light .
 
DaveC426913 said:
"Expansion of space" is not equal to "travelling through space".
Click to expand...

The thing is , is that in the first 48sec. Of the video Fraser said " perhaps " it is because of the expansion of the Universe ; dark energy .

Nobody knows . There is no definitive explanation at all .

That is the thing isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top