@sonhouse saidThat would mean the universe is expanding faster than the speeds of light. Where is your evidence? You are basing a theory upon another theory that doesn't make sense.
@Metal-Brain
He said among other things galaxies were SEEN going faster than the speed of light which is total BS.
If there was something receding faster than light how would you get the light coming off it?
What MAY be receding faster than light is the entire universe and what we see is the further away we look galaxies are red shifted due to relativistic doppler shift. ...[text shortened]... times the speed of light.
Even at that speed to cross the universe would still take a month or so.
@Metal-Brain
It might not make sense to you and that would be because you don't want to actually study cosmology.
@sonhouse saidSo you have a theory based upon another theory that you cannot explain logically. What else is new?
@Metal-Brain
It might not make sense to you and that would be because you don't want to actually study cosmology.
@Metal-Brain
I attended a lecture given by Alan Guth at the Bell Labs auditorium and he gave some numbers as to how big it expanded in some incredibly short time and I crunched the numbers and it seems the expansion from time zero had it going 22 ORDERS of magnitude faster than light.
I was able to ask him if that was correct and he answered 'You did your arithmetic right'. I asked how it could be going faster than light and he said it was not just matter moving that fast it was the underpinnings of matter, spacetime itself expanding and taking matter along for the ride.
So when the Universe became transparent about a half million years later it was still expanding WAY faster than light and is thought to still be expanding some three or four times the speed of light as we speak.
Of course you will just dis everything I said, what could Alan Guth POSSIBLY know about cosmology.,
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@sonhouse saidIs your name Forrest Gump?
@Metal-Brain
I attended a lecture given by Alan Guth at the Bell Labs auditorium and he gave some numbers as to how big it expanded in some incredibly short time and I crunched the numbers and it seems the expansion from time zero had it going 22 ORDERS of magnitude faster than light.
I was able to ask him if that was correct and he answered 'You did your arithmetic right' ...[text shortened]...
Of course you will just dis everything I said, what could Alan Guth POSSIBLY know about cosmology.,
@sonhouse saidThat is merely a guess. It also contradicts Einstein's claim nothing travels faster than the speed of light. To say you are out on a weak limb is an understatement.
@Metal-Brain
I attended a lecture given by Alan Guth at the Bell Labs auditorium and he gave some numbers as to how big it expanded in some incredibly short time and I crunched the numbers and it seems the expansion from time zero had it going 22 ORDERS of magnitude faster than light.
I was able to ask him if that was correct and he answered 'You did your arithmetic right' ...[text shortened]...
Of course you will just dis everything I said, what could Alan Guth POSSIBLY know about cosmology.,
@metal-brain saidonly in the minds of some who don't know the first thing about the physics.
It also contradicts Einstein's claim nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
You are not a physics expert.
@Metal-Brain
Which just shows how clearly you don't understand a THING about cosmology.
You seem not to have heard Guth's answer, it is the underpinnings of matter that is moving, spacetime itself moving. So think of two conveyor belts close to one another but going in opposite directions and stuff is on those belts.
If you look at the two objects, one on each belt, going in opposite directions, it seems they are growing further and further apart but if you are on each belt you cans see each of those objects is not moving at all relative to the belt.
That is an analogy, maybe you will dis it but like the balloon analogy, same idea, a balloon with dots on it, you blow up the balloon and the dots recede from each other even though no dots are moving.
THAT is what Alan Guth was telling us at Bell Labs that day.
If you can't understand that, you have no business even TRYING to dis Einstein.
Also BTW, the bit about the universe coming from a single point in space is bogus because that point in space was STILL our universe but smaller, much much smaller. It would only be seen as a point by referring to a larger number of dimensions so you would have to include higher dimensions in order to show our universe as being a single point.
Newer theories have it there was never a time when there was zero volume that several scenarios could have happened, none of which has been anywhere near confirmed but it could happen in several ways, one being our universe is the daughter of a higher dimension universe where our universe is the end result of a black hole in that higher dimension space and the stuff of that black hole, the stars and gas and such that happened to have made that black hole then squirted into what became OUR spacetime with its own matter.
So theories like that are kicked around.
Some of the evidence cosmologists look for comes about as a very detailed analysis of the data from the cosmic background, looking for anomalies like circles which they have found where some suggest are the result of other budding universes 'bouncing' into and off our own universe, the multiverse theory.
Where there are bubbles in a higher dimension space like foam on bubble baths.
Each bubble being a separate universe evolving in its own individual way with different laws of physics, maybe the speed of light is a trillion miles per second, maybe another one where the speed of light is one mile an hour and so forth..
And of course you will dis them all since you know you yourself as being the most intelligent being on Earth, MUCH smarter than Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Tao, and all those COMBINED.
@sonhouse saidDoes the north pole, interact/exist with the south pole instantaneously? If so, in a sense the theory of relativity is violated as nothing, accordingly, can “travel” faster than the speed of light, yet the Earth’s very electromagnetic unity belies that theory.
@Metal-Brain
Which just shows how clearly you don't understand a THING about cosmology.
You seem not to have heard Guth's answer, it is the underpinnings of matter that is moving, spacetime itself moving. So think of two conveyor belts close to one another but going in opposite directions and stuff is on those belts.
If you look at the two objects, one on each belt, going ...[text shortened]... ntelligent being on Earth, MUCH smarter than Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Tao, and all those COMBINED.
Taking this concept a step further, does the solar system, or galaxy, when perceived as a functional unit, interact with itself in some way that by necessity makes a mockery of the speed of light? (The galaxy, of course, is hundreds of thousands of light years long.) In fact, when we look at photographs of galaxies, we are seeing entities that are hundreds of thousands of light years long. Certainly these systems have an orthorotational stability, and/or angular momentum which exists as a gestalt (totality) in a realm that easily transcends the speed of light and therefore, in that sense, violates relativity.
@metal-brain saidNo. He was generally right about physics and you are generally wrong about physics.
So now you claim Einstein was wrong?
@metal-brain saidNo, I never once claimed/implied that it didn't expand from one single point; Your new straw man?
Didn't you once claim the Big Bang Theory did not expand from one single point?
@metal-brain saidWe ALL (as in the science experts here) said it because it is true. What has that got to do with it?
Someone on this forum said the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space. Who was it?
There is no logical contradiction in space expanding from a single point; if that's what you are implying?
I never once claimed/implied that it didn't expand from one single point.