No, accepted scientific observational fact.
In fact a NASA site that confirms what we are telling you
Galaxies going faster than light ? [v.2]
- Thread starter river
- Start date
In fact a NASA site that confirms what we are telling you
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4275184/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl
"The Hubble Telescope spots thousands of unidentified objects travelling faster than light. Are we being watched? Or could we ourselves be aliens from another world?"
All you have done is confirm how gullible you are in excepting
the sensationalistic claim of a sensationalistic TV show, not of any NASA say so. C'mon river, you are smarter than that, surely?
It is what it is pad . NASA cannot explain it . AND THAT IS THE POINT .
What is what it is, is the fact that galaxies themselves do not move at or FTL: It is simply the spacetime that is expanding at FTL, and which does not contravene Einstein.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ex.html#sciam
"I would like to add a cautionary note, in case you might be wondering. Don't get confused! This expansion does not violate Einstein's theory of relativity, even though the imaginary dough of the even larger Universe, which we can't see beyond that edge, appears to recede at speeds larger than the speed of light. The dough represents space itself, and in our expanding Universe space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies (represented by the raisins) along on a ride.Einstein's limit to the speed of light applies only to motion through space, and not to expansion of space itself".
It certainly is explained, and as you have been warned about before in this thread at post 45......
Oh, and the nonsense explanation you imply is by NASA, that which you claim is inferring otherwise.
"Pseudoscience and crackpottery should consider itself warned. Putting the thread in Free Thoughts does not excuse anyone from any relevant necessity of being able to support an argument. Nor should you need such warning. Then again, here we are, so here you go, and now you know".
and post 66,
"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".
your continued feigning of willful ignorance is fooling no one.
Again, the show you refer to "NASA's Unexplained Files" is not by NASA, but by the Discovery/science channel people and akin to TV shows such as the X-Files, and simply go out of their way to sensationalize, and exaggerate certain supposed happenings by NASA astronauts and space endeavours, that are otherwise explained in more mundane logical reasonings.
One of their favourite "pastimes" is discussing sightings by astronauts and implying that they are UFO's of the Alien intelligent variety
Like I said, similar in content to the X-Files.
And yes most certainly, you can rest comfortably that whatever episode you were watching, that no galaxy was actually moving at or FTL [Doppler red shifted] but a simple observation of spacetime itself expanding and accelerating in that expansion [cosmological red shift]
And that's why river, as per near all your nonsensical claims, you are in pseudoscience.
You have a good day, never the less, OK?
It certainly is explained, and as you have been warned about before in this thread at post 45......
Oh, and the nonsense explanation you imply is by NASA, that which you claim is inferring otherwise.
"Pseudoscience and crackpottery should consider itself warned. Putting the thread in Free Thoughts does not excuse anyone from any relevant necessity of being able to support an argument. Nor should you need such warning. Then again, here we are, so here you go, and now you know".
and post 66,
"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".
your continued feigning of willful ignorance is fooling no one.
Again, the show you refer to "NASA's Unexplained Files" is not by NASA, but by the Discovery/science channel people and akin to TV shows such as the X-Files, and simply go out of their way to sensationalize, and exaggerate certain supposed happenings by NASA astronauts and space endeavours, that are otherwise explained in more mundane logical reasonings.
One of their favourite "pastimes" is discussing sightings by astronauts and implying that they are UFO's of the Alien intelligent variety
Like I said, similar in content to the X-Files.
And yes most certainly, you can rest comfortably that whatever episode you were watching, that no galaxy was actually moving at or FTL [Doppler red shifted] but a simple observation of spacetime itself expanding and accelerating in that expansion [cosmological red shift]
And that's why river, as per near all your nonsensical claims, you are in pseudoscience.
You have a good day, never the less, OK?
You think you better than NASA ; actually it's insulting to NASA that YOU think you know better than NASA . You have insulted NASA and its scientists in thinking that none have never given any thought to this bizzare observation.
These scientists are well beyond your understanding ; many have given no respect at all to NASA .
This program is NASA Unexplained Files ; and for a reason ; unexplained phenomenom.
Now , like it or not , the Brains of NASA can not explain what is going on .
To me pad you are trolling and arrogant ; to me it is you who should be warned .
river
Yes the space does not expand the way it is envisaged. Nowhere! it is a convenient but bad explanation for observed redshifts to keep BB monster alive..
If you think it's a "bad" explanation, then obviously you must have a different explanation for the observational evidence.
Let's hear your explanation then.
No, I'm well up on NASA and general cosmological theories to boot:
And your continued bullshit and willful ignorance leaves you with the credibility of the god.
To you riv, ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, Ancient giants, Alien origin UFO's that conduct medical experiments, all exist.
We'll leave the accusation/s of who is arrogant and who is trolling to the mods here and your peers on this forum, won't we?
Wrong again my friend.The evidence shows and supports the fact that spacetime over large scales expands and is accelerating in that expansion rate, while local denser regions are decoupled via gravity from that expansion rate.
That is the current reasoning as supported by the evidence, and no amount of childish willful ignorance by yourself and river will change that.
Your trolling pad .
No, you are being childishly and willfuly ignorant and have been warned already twice over that.
And of course our peers on this form, your's and mine will decide who is trolling.
The following of course from NASA
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ex.html#sciam
"I would like to add a cautionary note, in case you might be wondering. Don't get confused! This expansion does not violate Einstein's theory of relativity, even though the imaginary dough of the even larger Universe, which we can't see beyond that edge, appears to recede at speeds larger than the speed of light. The dough represents space itself, and in our expanding Universe space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies (represented by the raisins) along on a ride.Einstein's limit to the speed of light applies only to motion through space, and not to expansion of space itself".
Your trolling pad .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
For Pete's sake, the phenom was explained several decades before NASA was ever established.
River, you're being disingenuous - you're either being deliberately obtuse (trolling) or you're not bothering to read your own thread.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Offering up the ubiquitously-accepted explanation (GR), based upon the ubiquitously-accepted standard cosmological model, which has been verified more than any other theory in the history of science - and, indeed, our modern world (including you) is dependent upon to function - is the exact opposite of trolling.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. The SHOW insulted NASA by misrepresenting the good science they do. You're being duped by a show that gets ratings by leveraging NASA's name.
1. Would you call the space between Andromeda and Milky Way as void ?
2. Is it correct that the space between Andromeda and Milky Way is expanding but Andromeda/MW are closing in faster?
3. If #2 above is correct, then surely the photon/light will stretch in transit, once the light leaves Andromeda?
4. This one is far fetched...
Take two radial distance from earth, one at 5 mpc and second at 100 mpc ( any arbitrary large value would suffice to get rid of local aspect). Now even though we treat universe as isotropic, but still for argument sake let's assume that on one side of earth there is nothing between 5 mpc and 100 mpc, but on the opposite side, there are few objects. How do you talk of expansion on both the sides? The problem is you are supporting a view that void will have, without qualifying voids. I can have void at x distance on some direction, at the same time I can have mega cluster at x distance in different direction.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No. Above galaxies are parts of a local cluster, and galaxy clusters are hold together by gravity. This may change in some far away future once the expansion accelerates, but this is another question.
Such "expanding space" talk has nothing to do with GR, which does not provide any means for making a distinction. Don't forget, such sloppy talk about stretching usually depends on coordinates, and GR has no way to favor particular coordinates.
Cosmologies in reality care less, and prefer some coordinates. Like FLRW coordinates, or harmonic coordinates. But this is in no way done consistently. If one would, for example, consistently prefer FLRW in sloppy talk, one would not use the word "expanding", because in FLRW coordinates everything remains on its place, and the rulers (or what is held together by local forces) shrinks.
If I talk about voids as expansion of space, I use imprecise sloppy talk. So, do not expect precise definitions or qualifications.
Roughly, you have a topology consisting of voids, faces between voids, edges of voids and vertices. The voids expand, the faces expand in two directions, but, once the forces hold them together, shrink in the other direction until they become too thin - at this moment, the two voids start to become one bigger void.