ACG52

Of course it has to do with different relative motion. You've got O2 moving towards the light flash, so he's going to see the flash first. the light ray has to travel a greater distance to get to observer O1.

No, there hasn't been any period of contraction. The universe's expansion was gradually slowing up until 7 billion years ago, when the rate of expansion began to increase.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The moderators apparently no longer care about content. This kind of baseless, made up nonsense is all that these posts contain.

Then it would be measurable. It's not.

Eighty posts of made up nonsense.

As far as I can see, this is just being made up as you go along.

Nope, this is just that kind of nonsense.

There is no evidence that there is anything beyond death, existence wise. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of there being nothing which contradicts observation of all life. When an organism dies, it no longer manifests any sign of continued existence. It's the belief that consciousness continues after death which is a matter of faith, i.e. a belief based on no evidence. This is the kind of nonsense that religious believers come up with to try to assuage their feelings of intellectual inferiority.

Three words strung together which have individual meanings and mean nothing at all when grouped as they are.

I'd like to know why the moderators allow, and even seem to encourage this utter nonsense posted by the badly misnamed 'Puregenius'. We've already seen how this garbage confuses those who simply don't know any better.

You can't find what isn't there.

Where I'm drowning in a sea of made up history.

This is obviously just being made up as cladking goes along. The entire thread has been this way.

It's not going to happen. He's a lawyer, and so thinks words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

He's a lawyer. He can't do either.

What language changed? From what to what?

You are not right in any way at all.

None of this matches any observation of experiment. Again, that's not what we see. Primordial hydrogen is 13+ billion years old and shows no sign of any unstablility. But they don't do that. You don't really have any kind of model here. None of it matches what reality shows us. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

No. Therre is the observable universe, which is as far as we're able to see, given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and has been expanding for that length of time. The observable universe is a sphere, 48 billion light years across, but that's from ANY point, not a central point. T = 0 was the beginning of the initial expansion. The universe can have a finite origin, and still expand infinitely. Why would there be any 'back pressure', and from what?

You don't seem to get it. Gravity is incredibly weak. It's just everywhere. The effects of gravity on the expanding universe are homogeneous. There's no center of the universe, there's no point that gravity is pulling everything too. Read post 13 again.

Gravity does, not the energy driving cosmological expansion (Dark energy). The rate of cosmological expansion is a metric scalar. It increases at the rate of 78 km/megaparsec (3.26 million light years) If you are going to either extend our present understanding, or replace it with something else, the new paradigm must provide testable predictions which are either as accurate, or more accurate and more comprehensive than our present understanding. If it can't meet that standard, it's discarded..

Because not everything in the universe is expanding. Space is expanding, but that only takes effect outside the local galactic supergroups at over 200 milllion light years. That's the limit of gravitationally bound objects. Closer than that, gravity overwhelms cosmic expansion. And certainly nothing material is expanding, the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces so overpower cosmic expansion that expansion might as well not be there at all. The force driving cosmological expansion is incredibly weak, and becomes a factor only when it acts over even more incredible distances.

Yes, old news. What does this have to do with the subject under discussion? Dark energy and the acceleration of cosmic expansion has nothing to do with the strong and weak nuclear force.