Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Angelo

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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


  4. 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. 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

  6. 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


    Do remember that Galileo accepted NOTHING and was right about everything


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


  7. 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


    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



  8. 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?

  9. 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

  10. 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.

    By Adam Mann 2020-01-09T20:37:47Z

    We just might need new physics to get out of this mess.

    New physics means that the current rules do not allow for the observations to be real and thus must be corrected


    Or the universe might be more complicated than can be understood just by looking at billions of year old photons will allow for. 

    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

  11. 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. 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.

  13. 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?


    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


    10 hours ago, michel123456 said:

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



  14. 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.

    By Adam Mann 2020-01-09T20:37:47Z

    We just might need new physics to get out of this mess.


    HONOLULU — A crisis in physics may have just gotten deeper. By looking at how the light from distant bright objects is bent, researchers have increased the discrepancy between different methods for calculating the expansion rate of the universe

    "The measurements are consistent with indicating a crisis in cosmology," Geoff Chih-Fan Chen, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said here during a news briefing on Wednesday (Jan. 8) at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu.


    At issue is a number known as the Hubble constant. It was first calculated by American astronomer Edwin Hubble nearly a century ago, after he realized that every galaxy in the universe was zipping away from Earth at a rate proportional to that galaxy's distance from our planet. 


    The problem is that, in recent years, different teams have disagreed over what exactly this constant's value is. Measurements made using the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a remnant from the Big Bang that provides a snapshot of the infant universe, suggest that the Hubble constant is 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec).

    But by looking at pulsating stars known as Cepheid variables, a different group of astronomers has calculated the Hubble constant to be 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc). 

    The discrepancy seems small, but there is no overlap between the independent values and neither side has been willing to concede major mistakes in its methodology. 



    So whatever you know...……………..it's wrong, when you know that you are right

  15. 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

  16. 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:

    After some time they are 2 units apart:

    After the same time again, they are 3 units apart:

    And so on:

    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.


    "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



    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:


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


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


    For example this galaxy found in 2016:


    "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

  17. 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



  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.