zapatos

Can you point me to a link for that? I wasn't able to find that number and would like to read more about it. Thanks.

Me too, but I think the problem is our lack of knowledge of exactly what is happening, rather than the fact that we've made a terrible mistake. It may not make sense but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that observation and theory support the concept of expansion. As an example we observe that the further a galaxy is from us the faster it is receding. Meaning that if the galaxies were lined up as: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - Us - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 with an equal distance between each of them, then we will see galaxies 6 and 7 receding at a rate of 1x from us, galaxies 5 and 8 receding at a rate of 2x from us, etc. There is a great deal of scientific evidence to support this observation. Now it could be that our galaxy just happens to be in the center of the universe, and for some reason we are not moving, and for some reason galaxies 6 and 7 are moving away from us at the same velocity of 1x, and that galaxies 5 and 8 who happen to be twice as far away from us are moving away from us at twice that velocity of 2x, and so on. And of course we have to explain why to galaxy 3, the galaxies to the left seem to be moving away at different velocities than the galaxies to the right. But the more likely scenario (once again supported by theory and observation) is that we are not in the center of the universe and the galaxies are all moving away from each other at the same rate, based on comparable amounts of space in between. Based on the previous setup: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - Us - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 expansion would manifest itself as space expanding equally between equally distant galaxies. So if we double the space between each set of galaxies, we now end up with: 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- 4 -- 5 -- 6 -- Us -- 7 -- 8 -- 9 -- 10 -- 11 -- 12 At this point it still looks like galaxies are receding from us, and we still see galaxies at greater distances receding at greater rates, but now we can explain it without us being at the center of the universe, and we don't have to explain the physics behind galaxies at one distance travelling at one velocity, and galaxies at twice the distance travelling at twice the velocity. Galaxies 6 and 7 used to be one unit from us, and now they are two units from us. Galaxies 5 and 8 were two units from us but now they are four units away. Now no matter where you are in the universe, whether at galaxy 4, or Us, or 10, you will see that the recessional speed of galaxies increase as their distance from you increases. Everyone looks as if they are at the center of the universe.

That is correct. Unfortunately that is not something I'm able to answer. If someone else with more knowledge could jump in I'd love to hear the answer myself. It seems to me that this is not well understood and is therefore difficult to calculate. I continually see differences of opinion on how much of the expansion is intrinsic, how much of a role dark energey plays, how much of it is due to inertia from the big bang, what role the early inflationary period of the universe played, etc. It seems easy enough to calculate the rates at which expansion is taking place over very large distances but I have never seen a calculation that determines a point at which two bodies pass from being governed by gravitation to being governed by expansion.

I'm wondering then how attraction comes into play. I am sure there is some homosexual behavior that is simply social. Some women I know who have had public displays of 'making out' with other women said they did it simply because it was fun, to tease the guys who were around, etc. But it seems like this is a small part of what is involved in homosexual behavior. Don't most people who have sex do so with the the gender they are 'attracted' to? Is it true that most people who participate in homosexual behavior do so because they feel that attraction to the same gender? Having an attraction sounds to me like it must be from something like a genetic or developmental cause, rather than a social cause. People have talked about sexuality being on a continuum, but just from personal observation (which may not mean squat) it seems that 'most' people are heterosexual, followed by a small group that is homosexual, followed by a very small group that falls in between.

I don't know enough about the subtleties of evolution to participate in this discussion much, but I am unclear on a particular point that has been made and would appreciate some feedback. A couple of times in this thread the point was made that people have sex primarily for enjoyment, not procreation. I understand that it is pleasureable, but presumably the pleasure is simply an incentive to procreate. I don't think we evolved that pleasure simply to make our lives less dreary. Evolution has built a mechanism to ensure procreation; a need that gets us up and off the couch on Saturday night, and a reward in the pleasure of some one-on-one athletics. The need to have sex is similar to the need we get from thirst. The pleasure that comes from a cool drink of water and sex seems to be there simply to help ensure we slake those respective thirsts. It seems to me that while our conscious minds may think we are having sex for pleasure, deep down we are having sex to procreate. Homosexual behavior, whether genetic, environmental, or cultural is of no particular benefit and simply exists because the mechanism for procreation is not flawless.

The concept is exceedingly simple. The fact that you acknowledge that a photon cannot exceed c, and that you acknowledge that recessional speeds do exceed c, leads me to believe that you are being purposely obtuse and wasting the time of those explaining it to you. I cannot imagine why you are doing so. He didn't say matter has been observed to travel at or above c. He said a galaxy can have a recessional speed exceeding c, for which there is scientific evidence.

Yes, you are of course correct. Expansion is thought to be a generic property of space, and expansion is thought to be accelerating due to dark energy. To the OP, my point remains that the reason that atoms in my body do not expand away from each other and stars do not expand their way out of the galaxy, is due to them being bound by the stronger forces of gravity and other physical and chemical bonds. Expansion is simply an observation of the behavior of structures in the universe. The structures we see in the universe have been named solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, etc. What we observe is that space expands between structures as large as what we've named superclusters, but is not observed between, for example, galaxies within a cluster. There is nothing special about 'superclusters' expanding away from each other, it is just that there is a much larger distance between superclusters than there is between galaxies within a cluster. It is the distance that is important. The distance between superclusters is enough to allow expansion to overcome gravity, the distance between galaxies within a cluster is not enough to allow expansion to overcome gravity. If in some part of the universe there are two stand-alone galaxies which have a distance between them that is comparable to the distance between two superclusters, then they would be expanding away from each other also.

An idea exists only in the mind; The EU exists in reality Europe. I believe the de facto headquarters are in Brussels which if you are so inclined you can visit. Unlike an idea, the EU can and does take action, just like a person does.

It's just an analogy... As Spyman said, at the point in time when "...space, BETWEEN us and those photons, is expanding faster than light." Problem solved. Correct. But then so what? No one has to 'evaluate' how something will happen before it can happen. Does a leaf not flutter to the ground because no one has evaluated wind speed, humidity, distance to the ground, aerodynamics of the leaf, etc.? The universe doesn't "know' anything.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

A lot of this depends on from where you are measuring earth's gravity. If you count people as being part of the earth (and I don't see why you wouldn't) then the earth has lower gravity when people leave it. If however you are measuring the gravity from the moon, and the people are in earth orbit, I don't think you would measure gravity any differently. You would measure earth's gravity as lower if your measurement was done from a position between the earth and the orbiting astronauts. The earth's gravity increases as additional mass is added, whether it is from space debris or millions of civilizations. If we gather on one side of the earth and jump toward the moon, and you are measuring gravity from the moon, there will be no measured change in gravity. You might want to get the person on the other forum to clearly define his terms and premises. When the earth was forming it was once 1/10 the size it is today. Does this person believe that the earth has the same gravity now as it did then?

Dark energy, the source of expansion, is thought to permeate all of space, including the space within our bodies. Dark energy is weaker than gravity on relatively small scales, such as between planets in our solar system, stars in our galaxy, and even galaxies within our supercluster. These objects are gravitationally bound and the force of dark energy is not powerful enough to overcome that gravity. On a relatively large scale, such as between superclusters of galaxies where gravity has weakened enough due to great distances, dark energy is powerful enough to overcome that weak gravity. Therefore the expansion of the universe takes place between superclusters.

I can confirm from personal experience that this occurs, and believe that not only is it justified, but that in many cases it would be immoral not to do so.

No, I am an independent. Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Right about in the middle. I think that most of our elected officials are honestly doing what they think is best whether I agree with it or not, which keeps me from taking potshots at them. I have no problem with political views that don't coincide with mine. My problem is people who are not fair and honest.

I am included in the 'we'. The problem is all the political B.S. handed out by you this entire month. And I'm tired of working on it.

Are you saying that the photon is now travelling at 2c? If so that is incorrect. If not, can you please restate? Again, it sounds as if you are saying that even though space between 2 objects has increased, that it will not take any additional time for a photon to travel between those 2 objects. If that is what you are saying, it is incorrect. What is a 'scaled inch'? Does it have different physical properties than a regular inch? Can you define 'scaling' (as in, 'the road extends...by scaling'? Is scaling synonymous to 'metric expansion'? Twenty inches are twenty inches. If a photon takes x amount of time to traverse 10 inches, it takes twice as much time to traverse 20 inches, whether you call them 'scaled' or not.

Don't bother on my account. I've lost interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Then we will know more about the human mind. But I would not say "What if" they discover something new about the human mind, I would say "When" they discover something new about the human mind. Or about anything else for that matter.

No. If for every inch of road I traverse, the road grows by two inches, I will never reach my wife. It is that simple. Correct. That is not in question The photons that were emitted prior to the recessional speed exceeding c will reach us. The photons that are emitted after the recessional speed exceeds c will not reach us. After the last photon that was emitted prior to the recessional speed exceeding c reaches us, no other photons from that galaxy will reach us. At that point the galaxy will be lost to us.

No. Why do you ask?

Sometimes I wonder if it is risky starting analogies because of where it can go, but... If this other husband started running toward my wife when she was still accelerating in her car, and he was running at 10mph and the car was only going 5mph, he could catch her. But if she is already going faster than 10mph when I start running, I will never catch her. We didn't all start running toward her at the same time. Some started running when she was travelling slowly, before she realized a bunch of crazed men were chasing her!

Ok. You believe a photon will travel at c, and that a photon can reach an object whose recessional speed exceeds c. But I missed the answer to the last question. How did the photon travelling at c catch up to an object whose recessional speed exceeds c? Similarly, how will I catch up to my wife if I am running at 10mph, and she is driving away at 20mph?

Agreed. Everything in the universe looks younger than it 'actually' is, since some amount of time, whether long or short, passes between the time the photon leaves the object and the time it arrives at your eye. You'll have to explain that in terms of physics. But it brings me to my question, which I would appreciate if you would answer in a yes/no fashion to start even if you give more explanation after. Do you believe that a photon emitted from a star, whose recessional speed exceeds c, will ever reach our eye? And as a follow up, if you answer yes to the above question: Did the photon mentioned above travel at c? And as a follow up, if you answer yes to the above question: How did the photon travelling at c catch up to an object whose recessional speed exceeds c?

Why do you think she is not Christian? Why do you think Christianity has a trademark on the cross?

I can see why you would think so, but no. Ideas in speculations are treated the same as they are elsewhere on the site. It is just that in speculations it doesn't have to be 'current accepted mainstream science'. The idea is that you don't want someone who is a novice to science to be reading a speculative thread in the 'physics' section and think they are reading mainstream science. It can be very misleading for somone who is here just to learn.