Ah ...I SEE but NASA DID say so on the program NASA unexplained files .
So your not an idiot but not informed instead .
Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Ah ...I SEE but NASA DID say so on the program NASA unexplained files .
So your not an idiot but not informed instead .
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I vividly recall the time I wasted on river, on the subject of water, some years ago. To this day I do not know whether we are dealing with a troll, or just someone of impenetrable stupidity. But one thing is sure: he will never show any sign of understanding your explanations.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No indeed. You are not.
Yeah well that's what they do .
To discredit me seems to be the goal , over and over again .
Thanks though : The God : because I'm so use to it that I miss your observation . About them towards me . I'm easy going , though . Their anger towards me is just a reflection how on point I am .
I have zero friends , unfortunately. Maybe this will change . Don't know . Or maybe I do but don't know it . I'm complaining ; it has been many yrs.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Asked and answered, many times:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/galaxies-going-faster-than-light-v-2.157842/page-7#post-3405519
You are now wilfully trolling, since you are deliberately pretending you don't know the answer to your question.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You could have many friends; you are a pleasant enough fellow.
All you'd need to do is acknowledge that you could learn from them.
Sometimes
But also you learn from me . Sometimes
We all learn ; that's all that matters .
I wish there were less insults and just outright rejection and more Hmmmm...I'll think about that.
We have become so defensive that little in the way of the exploration of an idea is accomplished.
I know for the most part I'm outside the box . But I think this is a healthy attitude to have. Remember most of the time it's not my theory ; I just put it out there .
Last edited:
Best and simplest way I can think of it is - think of a wave, rolling through the ocean. The water itself isn't moving nearly as fast as the wave is propagating, yet a surfer can "ride" that wave. By that, I mean the horizontal displacement of the individual water molecules is FAR LESS than the actual speed of the wave moving, so in essence the surfer is riding not the water itself, but the wave propagation through it.
Get it .
But we are talking about going FASTER than the speed of light . Not just any old speed .
Your problem river is you see this "outside the box" thingy, as some sort of badge of honour that you chose to wear proudly, but that in fact now has you simply denying or turning a blind eye to what the evidence points to.
All scientific theories and models were at one time, "outside the box" but continued research, and gathering of data, sees most now accepted.
The great man himself was wrong in believing that the universe/spacetime was static.....Note, what made the man great was his ability to admit it as his greatest blunder when evidence showed a dynamic universe.
You most certainly understand that spacetime expanding at FTL, explains the recessional velocity of galaxies, and you also certainly understand that this does not defy Einsteins basic tenant that "c" is the universal speed limit applying to anything with mass.
That was answered and explained as early as post 2, and further explained many times since. It's just a shame that your inability to accept that you are wrong in your interpretation of the video you saw, blinds you to the facts that everyone is trying to convey to you.
He obviously understands far more than you in all respects.
Aye, I do (far better now than before, having some prior questions answered and additional information understood). it is an important distinction after all
How is the following post earlier in this thread, relevant to anything being discussed in any science forum?
The totality of this thread with regards to spacetime expansion at FTL is well known and accepted by mainstream cosmology at this stage.
NASA at no stage would say that galaxies are moving FTL without a proper explanation of what is meant.......Because the fact is they are not and neither is anything moving at or FTL.
Without giving anymore analogies WIKI sums it up pretty nicely.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions andexplosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric, and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such things do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate.
NASA at no stage would say that galaxies are moving FTL without a proper explanation of what is meant.......Because the fact is they are not and neither is anything moving at or FTL.
Without giving anymore analogies WIKI sums it up pretty nicely.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. This is different from other examples of expansions andexplosions in that, as far as observations can ascertain, it is a property of the entirety of the universe rather than a phenomenon that can be contained and observed from the outside.
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric, and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above). At smaller scales matter has become bound together under the influence of gravitational attraction and such things do not expand at the metric expansion rate as the universe ages. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate.