6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Who said anything about returning to the 80's. What part of the value that Holicow found has been used before didn't you understand ?

Do you have a comprehension problem ?

Can you accept that Einstein was not correct about everything and that unfortunately too many people do not accept this

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has been known for about 350 years. 

But that wasn’t what I said. You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems. 

Actually I said, "There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago."

Then you said "Yes there were. This has always been known."

So since the expanding universe was officially discovered in 1929 it has not always been known, and since the speed of light was first calculated in 1676 by Danish astronomer, Olaus Roemer, this also has not always been known.  I read and comprehend just fine

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes there were. This has always been known. 

The new observations have nothing to do with galaxies receding at more than light speed. And that has nothing at all to do with the simulation hypothesis. 

You clearly don’t understand anything you are reading. That has nothing to do with expansion. And nothing to do with anything moving faster than light. 

Sorry the speed of light and even an expanding universe has not always been known.  Honest, not sure where your ideas come from as they are not based upon science

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you suggesting the Earth is not a good a point as any other to pick for the centre of the universe?

What is your preferred one?

Actually if the big bang were real all of the information in the form of moving galaxies could be reversed to the beginning point.  This is elusive however as there seems to be no such point.  However to determine the true center of the universe one would need to know what the boundaries are.  Without this info finding a center is not logically possible, also are you referring to a geographic center or as typically proposed the beginning of expansion which can not be found.  Technically the Earth is the center of humanity in the known universe, so there are many ways to express center

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn’t invalidate existing physics. It just extends it. Like when evidence of Neptune was detected. It didn’t invalidate our model of the solar system, just suggested that there was an extra planet. 

None. It was the default assumption at the time. (Based on the known evidence.)

Einstein never claimed to know everything. 

And, ironically, it was Hubble who never accepted that the universe was expanding. 

Wrong, as Neptune was and is not moving at 5 to 6 times the speed of light as NASA has observed.  Also Einstein can not be correct as is now accepted which agrees with the current observations

40 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yeah we had to rely more on hand calculations. The resolution of the COBE dataset to the WMAP dataset was a significant difference. Back then we weren't even sure on what the curvature term was. Lol the Higgs field was still speculative back then.

Lol I lost track of how many shapes of the universe was theorized back then. To put it into perspective there was close to 1000 different viable inflationary models. Quintessence and MOND was still a big deal.

Just a side note my first learning experience in programming was on a VIC 20. However don't confuse computers available to the general public with computers available to Profesional research facilities. For example no one in the general public has access to numerous supercomputers available today. 

 

So you want to return to the 80's and deny the billions of percent more processing power since then and how much data this has gathered.

Irrational, you might as well claim that the Earth is the center of the universe if you want to go that route

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We aren’t responsible for what happens elsewhere. That has not happened here. I checked all of your threads.

You are correct but you said that this has never happened and I assure you that it has

Just now, Mordred said:

I can argue as my own dissertation paper back in the 80's used 73 km/Mpc/sec as a value. It worked quite fine back then and it will today.

The 80's before computer imaging. 

What has resolution increased since the 80's

Well to steal a line, resolution has increased billions and billions of percent since the stone age 80's.

80's like in Atari asteroid

Are you serious

8 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

I have a question, do you recognise that people have attempted to explain that particular thing to you? Is it A that you don't accept their answers, B that you don't understand their answers or C you just ignore them intentionally?

If it is not C, then its maybe a good idea to go back to figuring out where your thinking is in opposition, and how you could potentially learn more about, instead of immediately saying everything has failed. Honestly, you are doing a horrible job at learning anything, you don't seem to grasp or are intentionally ignoring a lot of explanations and instead you keep asserting whatever you think to be right...

You are determined to argue with me, however I am just referencing NASA observations.  If you know please contact NASA, they will accept your input because they are stumped

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1187112/nasa-news-albert-einstein-wrong-theory-relativity-hubble-telescope-messier-87-spt

Do remember that Galileo accepted NOTHING and was right about everything

PS. The Navy just admitted that UFO's are toying with F18's

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Nothing is actually moving at greater than c this was explained to you in your other thread

However if you need detailed information on the difference between expansion rates per Mpc and the apparent recessive velocity due to [math]v=H_oD[/math] read this

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf

It was written by a Colleague of mine and he has a pH.D whose specialty is inflation.

The Hubble telescope made the observation not me, so explain your ideas to NASA and do believe me they are accepting new ideas because the old ones just failed

http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Adam Mann is a journalist not a professional Cosmologist. He doesn't crunch the numbers based upon different datasets.

 In the first year of my Cosmology course the typical value we used was 100 km/Mpc/sec.  During the Cobe dataset we used a value similar to the Holicow measurement. That was 20 years ago. Then Planck fine tuned that value to roughly 78 km/Mpc/sec.

Even with that huge range of going from 72 to 100 Km/Mpc/sec was any new physics required. In this case we're only dealing with a 6 km/Mpc/sec difference.

Never trust pop media articles. Particularly when a professional Cosmologist tells you differently. 

There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago.

This is why the new measurements are causing men like Tyson to question reality for simulation

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Einstein chose to add the cosmological constant term to keep the universe static to conform to the standard belief at the time. He was thankful when Hubble proved it was expanding.

As I mentioned science doesn't stop with Einstein that was 100 years ago.

There was no standard belief at the time that was based upon science.  Hell the standard belief was once that the Earth was the center, so what does standard belief have to do with anything at all?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have to say, over the years, the mainstream deniers have given me the impression that it's less about poking at the establishment and more about the superiority they feel when they discover they don't have to actually study it if they can ridicule it, claiming it isn't worth it. Science is a LOT of work.

What work exactly did Einstein do to determine that the universe was not expanding?

And I am being quite serious, Hubble observed, Columbus sailed.  Einstein sat down with a pencil and claimed to know everything about everything that he never even saw.  Hubble looked and had to correct the pencilneck

8 hours ago, Strange said:

It s a news story, reporting on scientific research. What would "disagree with the article" mean? That the journalist made up the story and no such research has taken place.

I have seen the same research reported in multiple places so I the article appears to be accurate.

Where does it say that it invalidates physics as it is currently known?

It says that two different measurements, which were expected to give the same result, provide different results. This is intriguing and tells us that something is wrong with the measurements or that our model of the universe needs to be adjusted (or both). Further work may tell us which. That is how science works.

No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse.

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

No, nobody has done that to you. Please stay on topic.

 

Yes that has been done to me many times as my existence is not limited.  See you can not know everything about me by what you see here nor can you understand the universe by billions of year old light

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Please do not post articles in their entirety. That violates copyright rules.

 

When I do not post the article I am accused of copyright infringement.  Now do you agree or disagree with the article, remembering that if you disagree that you know more than the entire rest of the science community combined.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Actually, that article is about making more accurate measurements; ie. about knowing more.

So, yes, this may show up something new that we don't know about. This sort of "crisis" is why science is so exciting; it may indicate a new discovery. One the other hand, it might just be down to some sort of error in one of the measurements.

Actually the article is about the newest most accurate measurement that invalidates physics as it is currently known.  This is the crisis referred to

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also irrelevant 

LOL Sagan said that science was over, that the pace of learning would drastically slow because basically everything had been discovered.

Intel ignored Sagan, as are computer engineers today.  Sagan was as wrong as wrong could possibly be as 99.999 percent of all knowledge is still unknown and may always be as we can not see outside the universe to achieve the perspective on what it is.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. It wouldn’t. We don’t need to know, for example, what a specific rare fish is in order to measure it’s speed. 

You would know it's a fish, in water exposed to 1G and you would be close enough to monitor it, and it would not be moving in excess of 3 billion miles per hour or more, in an unknown medium

7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

There is no doubt the universe is expanding the question what exactly the rate is.  The more interesting question is why the to methods give a differ number.

It would help if we actually knew what the universe was

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Your only questions are sarcastic and unhelpful. Your assertions have mostly been wrong, and have been pointed out to you, but you've chosen to ignore them. You're rejecting explanations without reason, simply because they don't seem intuitive to you. This isn't personal, it isn't about you. It's your approach to learning that's causing a problem in discussions.

I have to ask, is there any way to reason with you on this subject, or is your incredulity always going to be an impassable obstacle? How can we turn this discussion into a meaningful one? Several people have tried explaining what mainstream science says on this subject, but it's hard to have a conversation with you when half the effort is spent trying to get your fingers out of your ears.

My assertion is that no one knows, do you know?

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

He's saying all the data we receive is through photons.

All the data I just received from you is 0 and 1's.  They are irrelevant as it is your sentence in English that matters

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

10 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Do you mean that all the information we get from the universe is reaching us with velocity C ?

Unknown

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

See it takes a bigger man to say "I do not know" than it does to know the unknowable

No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse.

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 6:56 PM, Bufofrog said:

Do you have any evidence to support that, or does that just seem right to you?

Do you have any evidence about the speed of distant galaxies that eludes everyone else?

See anyone can say anything if they choose including those that say there is no universe just Gods hard drive.

Why do you tolerate people telling you that you do not really exist?

PS. I do not believe in Gods hard drive, that belief goes to great physicist that say they do not believe in God, then say God made everything

Is being that silly fun

On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 10:46 PM, MigL said:

Further to Mordred's point about apparent velocities and the effect of scaling on them...

I can easily move the bright dot of a laser faster than the speed of light across the surface of the moon, by moving the laser relatively slowly here on earth.

Funny how Einstein claimed that nothing was moving, that the universe was a static bubble

50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Space/distance is created between galaxies a certain minimum distance apart, so in the galaxy frame they are moving their normal speed. Space can expand as fast as it likes without violating Relativity.

Space is a constant, the changes come from the mass moving thru space. 

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Special relativity says that two things cannot move relative to one another faster than the speed of light. This only applies locally in the absence of gravity and curved spacetime.

General relativity is the basis of the big bang model; that the universe is expanding. This is expansion is a scaling effect, so distances get multiplied by some factor in every unit of time.

For example, consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them).

At time 0, they are 1 unit apart:
A.B.C.D.E.F

After some time they are 2 units apart:
A..B..C..D..E..F

After the same time again, they are 3 units apart:
A...B...C...D...E...F

And so on:
A....B....C....D....E....F

Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great.

Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. 

More here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

 

There is no absence of gravity where mass is concerned

37 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Telescopes, like Hubble, record photography of cosmic objects, and distant galaxies.

To get good quality picture from distant object, telescope must be recording object with very long exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophotography

"This is done by long time exposure since both film and digital cameras can accumulate and sum light photons over these long periods of time. "

Long-time exposure photography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-exposure_photography

 

Photons are emitted with inverse-square law, so their quantity per area drops with distance. Read inverse-square law wikipedia article if you are not familiar with it.

So, if you know that object should emit specific amount of energy, you can estimate distance to it, by reversing inverse-square law.

This method is called "Standard candles". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

 

Scientists found that distant objects are redshifted. Some of them extremely redshifted. This is article you must read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

The older galaxy you see, the more distant it is, and the higher redshift. It leaded to conclusion of that Universe is expanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

List of galaxies with some very high redshift (z value):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_galaxies

For example this galaxy found in 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

"GN-z11 is a high-redshift galaxy found in the constellation Ursa Major. GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe.[4] GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs).[5][note 1]"

 

To measure redshift, scientists are measuring shift of spectral lines emitted by well-known elements like Hydrogen or Helium, with assumption that they never changed in the past history of the Universe.

Again, if you're not familiar with it, you must read articles about spectral lines, emission spectrum, blackbody radiation etc.

 

 

ps. Yes, in computer games and simulations, programmers are constructing them in such way, that entities living inside are reaching internal "wall" which is impossible to be transcended..

All photons examined were emitted form stars that have mass.  So the mass is the relevant object not the emitted photon

Just now, Strange said:

If you have a cloud of gas or dust and let it expand, it will spread uniformly (each atom or particle will move away from every other). This will lead to a larger, less dense cloud. But it won't have a void in the middle.

What is the evidence that the universe began as a cloud?  Also since all galaxies are observed moving away from each other there needs to be a center.  Also if a cloud expanded it would become less dense than the cloud prohibiting solid mass from forming.

See the more questions one ask the more a computer program becomes viable or we must accept that all ideas that fail are flawed.   So what if background radiation is observed, there are as many reasons for this as there are things in the universe that remain unknown it does not need to be a big bang which has now become a bunch of little bangs that all happened together

Sure

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The universe has always been (roughly uniformly) full of matter/energy. This means that the early universe was very hot and dense. As the universe expanded it cooled and got less dense.

Again if it is expanding for 14 billion years this indicates a perfectly cool center void of mass as the expanding mass carried the heat away.  Without the void the big bang can not be scientifically verified

1 minute ago, Strange said:

This is actually one of the big unanswered questions. The current best hypothesis is that the universe achieved equilibrium when it was very small and then rapidly expanded (inflation).

This hypothesis could be at least partially verified by a void at the center of all expansion that should be traceable by reversing observed expansion directions

14 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The expanding universe is why the whole universe is cooling.  That is why there is background microwave radiation.

But the last poster said that the universe was not expanding from a single point, which with the size of the universe considered why would all mass start expanding at the same time.  The questions must be answered as without a single starting point it needs to be explained as to why expansion happened form multiple points at the same time, if it did

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The BB wasn't an explosion from a single point. It was an expansion of all the hot, dense matter and its evolution into a cooler, less dense state.

So that theory says that all matter was widespread and hot just for some unknown reason all started moving and cooling at the same moment.  What connected all this matter to begin changing at the same instant  It's not like an event in the Milky Way can effect another galaxy on the edge of the universe simultaneously

is and has been moving away from this point for 14 billion years wouldn't this indicate that there would be a 14 billion year wide void with the center of this being where the big bang happened and matter forming a sort of expanding shell moving ever outward?   In the absence of this how can the big bang theory survive?

how relativity which explicitly says that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light predicts something with the mass of an entire galaxy moving faster than the speed of light is predicted by relativity which forbids this?