Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

No, you can't claim that it's the expansion of space that allows objects to move away from each other faster than the speed of light. When objects are moving towards each other the space between them is contracting, when objects are moving away from each other the space between them is expanding, that's what moving away means. Space itself can't expand or contract or move in any way outside of the context of the relative motion the masses within it, a change in the volume of space is how movement is defined.

You can't use the motion of objects relative to each other to define the motion of space and then turn round and say that there's a difference and the relative motion of those objects (that you just used to define the motion of space) isn't through space. All motion is relative, objects can only move under the speed of light relative to the observer. You're trying to use the motion of objects to define something that you're claiming isn't the motion of those objects, contradictory circular reasoning to the extreme.

Objects cannot recede from us without moving through space, that's what moving through space means, an expansion or contraction of the space between matter. Even if space were able to somehow uniformly expand independently of the objects within it (which makes no sense whatsoever but let's go with it for second) to expand like that then it certain wouldn't cause the matter within it to spread apart, that would require the space to physically drag the matter apart through some kind of a frictional force.

Your boat on moving water analogy doesn't work. A boat moving at .9c relative to the observer would not be moving at 1.1c relative to anything if the water started moving at .2c, that's not how velocity addition works and you can't use it to break the speed of light. It also wouldn't make any kind of sense to ask what the universe is expanding into even if it were expanding, which it isn't. It wouldn't be expanding into anything, if it were then the universe itself would obviously be bigger than the thing that's expanding.

All of this silliness is based on redshift. Red shift is always caused by recession but doesn't mean that all recession is caused by redshift, this is the most basic form of logic. Halton Arp showed that physically connected objects can and in fact demonstrably do have different redshifts, this should have been the end of the big bang model. Red shift on the journey makes a very explicit and precise prediction that the expansion model certainly didn't make, it predicted that red shift is proportional to distance.

The big bang is a ridiculous idea that's been proved wrong on multiple occasions and each time they bolt on some ever more unrealistic fix so now we have galaxies moving way from each other faster than c but not really, an inflationary phase early on than locked in the overall uniformity of the universe for no reason and an inexplicable force causing the expansion to acceleration, again for no discernible reason other than to attempt to make this stupid model vaguely match what's actually out there.

Even with all that, galaxies are consistently being discovered too far away and therefore too early to be fully formed and yet there they are. As I've been saying for well over a decade, we're going to keep on find these as away as we're able to see. How can objects move away from each other faster than the speed of light without moving away from each other faster than the speed of light? Through the most absurd, convoluted and nonsensical handwavy excuse for deductive reasoning in all of science. Through utter lunacy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big bang is a ridiculous idea that's been proved wrong on multiple occasions and each time they bolt on some ever more unrealistic fix so now we have galaxies moving way from each other faster than c but not really, an inflationary phase early on than locked in the overall uniformity of the universe for no reason and an inexplicable force causing the expansion to acceleration, again for no discernible reason other than to attempt to make this stupid model vaguely match what's actually out there.

 

 

 

The Big Bang has not being proved completely wrong, it has been modified many times to make a better fit to observations :)  

 

Do you have a better model than inflationary phase followed by hot big bang (Guth/Linde), or multiple inflations and big bangs (Penrose) ?

 

I assume you accept the concept of contraction of space why not the expansion of space?

 

If space is expanding as seems to be the case from observations, red shift, what is your problem with the link above. 

 

What observations cause you to doubt the inflationary (big bang model), for the last 10 years??  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang has not being proved completely wrong, it has been modified many times to make a better fit to observations :)

A good model predicts what's unknown, not modifies itself every time some new is discovered.

 

Do you have a better model than inflationary phase followed by hot big bang (Guth/Linde), or multiple inflations and big bangs (Penrose) ?

Yes a much better model, no big bang. It's called the steady state model.

 

I assume you accept the concept of contraction of space why not the expansion of space?

What?

 

Length contraction is when two or more observers measure the same object as having different lengths to (along with time dilation) keep the speed of light constant. Length, like time and therefore velocity (rate of motion through space (length) over time) is relative.

 

An 'expansion of space' happens whenever objects move away from each other, that's what it means.

 

 

If space is expanding as seems to be the case from observations, red shift, what is your problem with the link above.

Seriously? Did you even read what I wrote? My problem is that saying objects are moving away from each other because of the expansion of space is the same as saying that the expansion of space is cause by the relative motion of objects moving away from each other. SAME FCUKING THING! You can't just word something differently and claim it allows you to violate the laws of physics.

 

As I pointed out in my last post, saying that the motion of the water (space) allows galaxies to move away from faster than light doesn't work as an analogy because if a boat moving at .9c moves into water moving in the same direction at .2c that doesn't mean that the boat would move away from you at 1.1c because that's not how velocity addition works.

 

 

What observations cause you to doubt the inflationary (big bang model), for the last 10 years??  

The observation that this model is bullshit of the highest order. Observations are needed to support a model, none are needed to refute it if that model provides no useful predictions or explanations of previous observations.

 

I answered all of these questions in my last post. The inflationary big bang model is based on redshift which was proven to have other causes besides rescession, which was proven beyond any doubt the moment that rescessional velocity would exceed the speed of light if it were the cause, so it obviously isn't.

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...