Leaderboard

The "Hubble Flow" is the motion of galaxies due to the expansion of the universe. It's not a frame of reference, its just a phenomena that occurs due to the fact that the space around us is stretching so the distance between any two pieces of matter is getting larger.

The reason why people talk about the speed of an object relative to the expansion of space is due to a problem physicist have with describing the universe to fit the data from cosmic background radiation. Einstein discovered that mass increases when in object is seen to be in relative motion to another object, but the mass increase of other galaxies was never detected to fit that theory. It is as though they are in relative motion to us while still being considered to be at rest, since they are not affected by relative motion in this way. This is explained as being due to them still being at rest relative to space itself. Then it was found that a universal theory would have to allow the Big Bang to be faster than the speed of light in order to fit the cosmic background data. Then they concluded that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light relative to the expansion of space in their theories, but space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

Co-moving coordinates is just one arbitrary frame of reference. There is nothing special about it. It is not "absolute", it is just convenient for some purposes. That is always true for someone who is considered stationary, in any frame of reference.

I'm not sure what "relative to the expansion of the universe" means. "Stationary" can be defined relative to any frame of reference. There is no absolute or special definition of "stationary". There is no reason to refer any one frame of reference other than convenience for a particular purpose. What does that mean? Speed is a change of spatial position with time. So how can an observer who does not move through space have speed?

! Moderator Note If you need to take a voluntary break and rediscover your civility, now would be an excellent time.

I think there are 2 ways to analyse the problems of an addict (but which might be only one reason, just seen from different levels of description): the functioning of his brain is impaired, in the sense that one of the capabilities of a person, to evaluate the results of his possible actions and act according to these, does not work properly anymore. there is one reason for actions that overwhelms all others, and the addict knows this: he knows nothing good for him will come out of it, and experiences his need for the next shot as overpowering him. Decisions are always contextual. A free decision, i.e. free from any context is of course a chimera. But if one element of this context overrules all others, and this element especially overrides all kinds of good reasons consistently and repeatedly, I am inclined to say that such a person is less free. I would not go as far as saying that there is a 'freest' state. But free will definitely comes in gradations. But, of course, there are all kind of methods to fool people in thinking that they act on their own accord, but in reality they are doing somebody else's will. But the touchstone here is, that when the person is clarified about this fact, he will feel duped. Now, I think that iNow would react with the idea that we are manipulated by the brain to think that we act according to our reasons. However, the problem with such manipulations as described above is that the organ that is in fact manipulated in such cases, is the brain itself. iNow separates the 'self' from the brain: otherwise one could never say that the brain manipulates us. This is a hidden presumption when one states that we are not free because what we do is determined by the brain. So to be as free as possible, one should strive for self-knowledge, for reflection on one's behaviour, being prepared to change this behaviour if it turned out to be (morally) wrong or based on false facts, and being not too much attached to one's feelings, ideas, identity etc. And when this sounds as a Buddhist program, then I think that is no accident.

One that keeps the water on the inside until you want to drink.

These are my 'laws of observation': If you observe 'expanding space' somewhere far from you (receiding galaxies obeying Hubble's Law), it has something to do with your local clock and ruler here on Earth. It has something to do with the difference between your clock and the hypothetical clocks in intergalactic space over there. If you observe curved space far away from you, due to gravity, the amount of observed curvature somewhere else has something to do with your local idea of a straight line. Determined by your local clock in your own curved spacetime environement. Wherever you are in curved spacetime, your local idea of a straight line and your local clock determines what you will observe somewhere else about space being curved or expanded. Every observer has his/her own ruler or clock. He or she or it is the measure for space and time somewhere else (through a telescope far from the observer's location). His clock and his ruler are the standards for space-observations somewhere else. ps: I do not believe in the Big Bang theory. I think that 'the observed expansion of space' has something to do with the difference between our local clock and the hypothetical clocks over there in space, far away from us. Whatever we observe to be going on with space elsewhere (curvature or expanding space), it has something to do with our local idea of time and the clocks over there. Because time and space are related. Maarten Vergucht Philosopher of time and space.

There is a very small difference, but that makes a very big difference for what kind of universe we live in: when I walk and you don't walk, we have different ideas about the time rate passage since the socalled big bang. When I'm fat and you are not (mass), we think differently about how much time is passed since the big bang. That's reality. Even when the numbers are very small, this small difference means a very big difference for the kind of universe we are living in. : no certain age of the universe possible. We live in a universe where there is no universal clock. (Einstein). So no age of the universe possible. That's not ridiculous. That's how the universe is. About Dunning and Kruger: why are you using this label for someone you think he doesn't know something you know. Why don't you explain with arguments why you think he is wrong? Don't label someone as being ignorant or someone with Dunning Kruger syndrom. Rather give some arguments why he is wrong in your opinion so he can learn something and is able to change his mind. Thanks. By the way: every scientist of the past who thought was right, but been proven wrong these days, could be seen today as someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom. As a blabbering pseudoscientist. There were many scientists with the Dunning Kruger syndrom, because later on their theory was been proven wrong or a better theory was been found. And maybe you will be seen as someone with the Dunning Kruger syndrom in the future when the big bang theory will be falsified by new evidence and a better theory will explain the phenomena better. About the big bang theory: When a scientist tells you this: 'time and space began to 13.7 billion years ago with a big bang', do you really think that he and you understand what is been said? You could ask this scientist: "what do you mean with 'the beginning of time'. The fact is:: this scientist has no clue at all what the concept 'time begins' mean.. He is combining some terms and he thinks he and you understand what it means, but, in reality, he has no clue what it means when he says: 'time begins and spacetime expands in nothing, not even space.'. He has no clue when he tells you that there was a tiny point of matter and energy combined expanding in ... nothingness, not even blackness or space. Do you really think he can grasp this concept? His math shows him this idea, and he is quoting his mathematics. But this scientist is saying sometehing he doesn't understand at all, what this concept means in reality.. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the expansion of everything in nothingness, not even space, expanding in nothing. Do you really think that a scientist can grasp this notion? I don't think so. .7

Strange, thanks for replying. I do believe the following: Because of the fact that we experience time everywhere the same (we do not experience a slower rate of time passage in a field of gravity), we will observe certain space distortions somewhere else. That's a hypothesis. We do not experience nor observe the curvature of space (and time) locally. To us, time flows everywhere the same. In our own referenceframe the laws of Newton work just fine. Therefore, to us, we will observe the spacedistortions (expansion of space) always somewhere else. Because we will have a local idea of straight ruler too. The philosophical aspect here is that minds or observers are crucial here. The experience of time or the experience of an uncurved local ruler, determines the observation of distorted spaces elsewhere.

What do you base this claim on? It is almost the exact opposite of what physics says. Electrons, for example, are point particles but have mass (even when at rest). Only particles with no mass can travel at the speed of light. What "laws of quantum physics" are you referring to? That doesn't make them particulate. Things can be smaller than the Planck length or time. Citation needed. I guess this is a very garbled version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that the more you constrain the location of a particle the greater the uncertainty in its momentum becomes. This is not a new result. It has been known for about 100 years. If this is not what you are talking about, then you need to be more specific that "some book I once read by some bloke". Maybe you should find out what you are talking about instead of posting nonsense.

This entire Thread needs to go in the Trash Bin.

I haven't given bad rep points much if any. You got one for this one from me. (IMO bad form not to owe up to using this button BTW. So, of course I do such. Question of honour.) Your rebuttal doesn't add up to much more than: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Now pose proper argument concerning my argument you left out in your partial quote. You are obliged to by the rules of the site BTW. You pinned this topic so you're stuck mate. Simply owe up to your mistake. Do you need me to provide you an exclusive list of possible ways to logically refute my position?

No. The observer effect is about how our measurements affect what we are trying to measure. It can apply to almost anything (for example, putting a voltmeter across a circuit changes the behaviour of the circuit). It can also apply to a single measurement, while the uncertainty principle relates two measurements. The uncertainty principle is about the limits to how accurately we can know something, even with perfect measurements: "The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[18] The uncertainty principle in its standard form describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[19] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) I'm not sure that is a useful example. After all, particles have momentum (and waves have position). But it does, perhaps, relate to the fact that the uncertainty principle is based on Fourier transforms between the two things being measured. And not sure why this is in Philosophy as it is purely a matter of physics.

I read a book a long time ago about light and electromagnetic energy, and it said that if you consider the velocity in the equations for particles like that and it is zero, then every property of the particle becomes zero due to the nature of the equations. I don't believe an electron could be found to be at rest or be involved with other properties if it had a zero related to it in an equation for its velocity. The more exact you consider the position of the electron the less exact the speed will be. You can never know the exact speed and position of an electron. The laws of quantum physics that actual physicist are working on besides you. If they can, then they could never be proven to exist via experiment according to Max Planck. Such things would purely be hypothetical and abstract in any case and never be able to be proven to exist. It is the definition of the Planck Units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck "Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as the originator of quantum theory,[5] which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes." I believe it goes beyond the idea that it could just escape, and by preventing it's escape through quantum jumping, it would then have to break out of the container. Yes, I believe that you have already explained to everyone here many times over that you are a pin head, already. I don't think we need further examples of this.