MigL

What a coincidence ! The minimum temperature, -273.150, when added to the CMB radiation ( relic from 13.4 Billion years ago ) of 2.70. gives your value for the temperature of outer space, -270.450. You see, this stuff is well known, and not a coincidence at all. To you these are coincidences, and explained only by conspiracy theories, and Medieval celestial spheres. To others, they are simply the result of orbital mechanics.

I'm still very confused. There are two velocities experienced by an orbiting body, in spherical polar coordinates ( for simplicity ). There is the angular component, the change in the angles of SP coordinates, which is also known as the orbital speed. This speed varies somewhat, to satisfy Kepler's orbital equation, but is approx. 30 km/s ( rounded off ! ). The radial component of SP coordinates also changes, going from positive to negative, since the orbit is slightly elliptical But it is very slight, and there is no net ( around the whole orbit ) change of radius, or else the orbit would be either decaying, or escaping. Can you please tell us which 'change of distance', per unit time, refers to the velocity you want to know about ????

The moon is approx. 2.5 light seconds away for a round trip. There is a mirror ( previously left ) on the moon. A laser , shining on that mirror, and detected on Earth again , shows no red shift. This is an easy to perform experiment, with any University lab equipment. Knock yourself out. Maybe if we went through the equations you've provided we might see where you made your mistake. Oh wait … You haven't provided any ! And of course having stars obscured by gas/dust clouds or galaxies that have ejected their central BH ( or simply formed without one ) is much too simple an explanation. You have to go back to the concept of a medieval celestial sphere located on the Oort cloud. Exactly what lies beyond the Oort cloud, then ? And how do our laws of motion work, then ? And, you use pop-sci articles that hint at 'conspiracies' as your evidence ?

I'm sure a published Cosmologist would know that light 'bends' around massive objects because TIME and space are curved, not just space. There is a difference between 'accurate' and 'snide'.

Aether 'wind' is a misnomer ( and M-M doesn't consider resistance to light, but to the Earth ). It simply means the aether is moving relative to the Earth. Whether it is the aether moving past the Earth, or the Earth moving past the aether, makes no difference. You will still get misalignment in the M-M experiment. None was found. Either the aether is 'stiffer' than diamond, but offers no resistance to objects passing through it ( an impossibility ). Or it simply doesn't exist !

I would agree. There is an angular speed, the orbital speed of 30 km/s. But there cannot be a radial velocity, otherwise the orbital radius would change at that rate. Then explain yourself better. We are confused as to exactly what you are asking. I'm sure the writings of a published Cosmologist should be much clearer.

Really ? We ask for evidence, and we get … conspiracy theories ??? I'm starting to think this isn't the right forum for you.

So … impossible to prove or detect. That means it has no affect on anything else, or it could be detected indirectly. And if it doesn't affect anything, what is the point of having it in the model ? Maybe you should post your ideas in the Religion section. God is also impossible to prove or detect, and why so many people have no need of Him. Just like the aether.

I don't think anyone has ever observed the orbits of Mercury and Venus behaving in the fashion that would indicate they were orbiting the sun as it orbits around a common CoM with the Earth. Mercury's orbit has been studied extensively, and is a 'foundational pillar' of GR. Probes have been sent to Venus; I doubt that could be done if we had the orbit all wrong. So, again, you are presenting assertions. Where is the evidence ???

Saying it ( no matter how many times ) does not make it true. Evidence please !

I have AVG ant-virus on some of my Win10 computers, and when AVG does an update, it locks me out of internet access, for some reason. Eventually, it crashes my connection to the router/modem. I have given up trying to find the problem, and simply disconnect power to the router/modem, and let them re-establish the network. My 'house' phone is an internet phone, so when I've got no dial tone, I know there's a problem with the network. Maybe I should just switch all my computers to Avast anti-virus, as they don't seem to give me any problems.

No. That balloon is a two dimensional representation of our universe, for ease of visualization. Our universe is, in effect, the SURFACE of that balloon ( reduced to just 2 dimensions ). And since the curvature of the universe is intrinsic, there is NO inside, and NO outside.

This is a forum where we engage in discussion for entertainment, and to expand our knowledge ( about science ). You have faith ? That's fine; no-one is trying to 'convert' you. But you have to understand that this is science, and this is how it works; it is based on evidence, repeatable experiments and observations, not faith. We don't tell you how to practice your faith; don't tell us how science is conducted. Why do you think it is OK to 'wrestle' with us, and to try and 'convert' us ?

I'm extremely confused by all this. Maybe a language issue ? You talk about the Big Bang, and movements of continental plates as if they are comparable time scales, and at the same time. I could see if you were talking about solar system formation as this might relate to the Earth's make up, but the Big Bang event was about 9 billion years earlier. We have theoretical grounds to believe light does not require a medium, and ( assuming no interactions ) unlimited lifetime. Unlike you, however, we have plenty of experimental and observational evidence to support our theories.

There are certain measurements and observations we can make, such as measuring the speed of light. To account for this speed, any medium must be extremely 'stiff', yet at the same time must allow motion through it with no resistance whatsoever, such that the M-M experiment yields aligned fringes. These are two contradicting requirements for the 'aether', and current theories work just fine ( as a matter of fact, excellent ) without it. Hence, it is of no use, and has been long discarded. What reason do you have to re-introduce it ?

Sooooo … no turning water into wine ?

I would let it go, but Phi is picky. I think he wants your own material, not other people's jokes, or ridiculous threads. We are all waiting …

Well, I can repeat ANY scientific experiment and get the same results. Can you repeat any miracles ?

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Yusef got me all worked up with his 'predestination' thread. I was just wondering, if we stopped engaging them, would they go somewhere else to preach ?

oh, and valence band electrons don't move, as they form the bonds. Conduction band ( and sometimes semi-conduction band ) electrons ( and sometimes holes ) do.

Neither is compatible with science. Which is what we discuss here ! Beliefs are discussed on Religious sites. ( and I don't go there and post about Evolution; hint, hint ! )

I love and respect all you guys, but I would have thought you'd have learned by now. You can argue about scientific theory, facts, data, observations, etc., as these are things that are falsifiable. It is a totally different argument when you need to rely on evidence; Bartholomew Jones doesn't. Beliefs, like Religious beliefs, don't need evidence, so no-one will ever be convinced their beliefs are wrong. BartholomewJones will carry on believing as he does, no matter what evidence is presented to him. And we will go on relying on the scientific method, and evidence based thinking. this whole discussion is, then, pointless, as neither side will learn anything from the other. And we wi

It actually seems pretty intuitive to me. If you place any dots on a 1 dimensional substrate, like a rubber band, the dots 'move' away from each other with those same properties. If you put the dots on a 2 D substrate like a rubber sheet, you observe the same kind of 'motion' or effect. If you put the dots on a 3 D substrate, like raisins in sweet bread then bake it, you observe the same as it expands. Seems like it work all the time. Of course. How else would you explain the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, when parts of it are increasingly distant for light ( information ) to ever reach. At one time the universe MUST have been small enough to be in causal ( local ) contact.

What does it say about you, if you're reborn as a dog in Yulin, China, during the dog meat eating festival ? ( apparently torture and skinning alive 'tenderizes' the meat )

I hate to burst your bubble ...