Relativity Question

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Well answered, Steven. Let's see if he argues with this.

His explanation makes no sense, let alone being theoretically and empirically incorrect.

Where does it not accord with theory.
Where is it empirically incorrect

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

However, the entire universe can only blink out if Y is a photon from the galaxy furthest from us and X is a photon from the galaxy nearest to us and all galaxies are receding so fast that light cannot reach us. However some galaxies are not moving away from us. So the universe will not blink out all at once.

Originally Posted by Archy

Where does it not accord with theory.
Where is it empirically incorrect

Just for you...go and reread this part of your answer. If you don't know why your answer doesn't make sense, then there's no point in me trying to explain it to you.

While you're at it....what makes you so eminently qualified to dismiss our answers offhand??.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Archy

What is clearly incorrect:
1) For the cosmological model postulated by CraigS it is possible the the two galaxies will blink out at the same time.

2) However, the entire universe can only blink out if Y is a photon from the galaxy furthest from us and X is a photon from the galaxy nearest to us and all galaxies are receding so fast that light cannot reach us.

3) However some galaxies are not moving away from us. So the universe will not blink out all at once.

Try re-reading my previous post.

[/I]You mention the Hubble sphere. As I understand Hubble sphere is the region of the Universe surrounding an observer beyond which objects recede from the observer at a rate greater than the speed of light, due to the expansion of the Universe.

There has been no empirical evidence of anything moving at a rate greater than the speed of light.

Of course there is empirical evidence. Any object that has a cosmological redshift z> 1.46 has a recessional velocity greater than c.
The reason we see some of the photons emitted was explained in my previous post.
Objects formed in this era occurred at a time before there was an acceleration in the expansion of the Universe. Photons that are intially superluminal become subluminal as the velocity of the Hubble sphere can eventually exceed the scale velocity of the Universe. These subluminal photons become observable.The objects themselves however continue to recede at superluminal velocities.

For a more technical explanation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

The Wikipedia article regarding the speed of light refers to objects travelling in space-time. When we refer to recessional velocities of objects, the objects are in fact stationary in space-time but are being carried by the Hubble flow or the expansion of space-time.

The Wikipedia article has no relevance.

[renormalised (Carl)]

You know the stupid thing here, Steven. He states "what is clearly incorrect" and then mentions 3 points that he says are incorrect. It's funny how those same ones he states as incorrect are exactly the same points he used to try and prove his position, in an earlier post.

If that's not a case of contradicting one's self, then I don't know what is

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You know the stupid thing here, Steven. He states "what is clearly incorrect" and then mentions 3 points that he says are incorrect. It's funny how those same ones he states as incorrect are exactly the same points he used to try and prove his position, in an earlier post.

If that's not a case of contradicting one's self, then I don't know what is

Initially I was totally confused.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Initially I was totally confused.

Regards

Steven

Considering his poor style and inconsistent logic, that wouldn't be hard to understand.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Archy

You seem to have problems with: However some galaxies are not moving away from us. So the universe will not blink out all at once.

The Andromeda galaxy is not moving away but towards us.

Sorry George .. I have a few higher priority matters to deal with over the next week or so, and I will be offline for that period … Steven has already answered your issues about this matter a few times anyway.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

You seem to have problems with: However some galaxies are not moving away from us. So the universe will not blink out all at once.

The Andromeda galaxy is not moving away but towards us.

A prime example of not understanding the science behind the question.

Why do you suppose M31 is not moving away from us within the general Hubble flow.

If you do know the science, you will know the answer.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You know the stupid thing here, Steven. He states "what is clearly incorrect" and then mentions 3 points that he says are incorrect. It's funny how those same ones he states as incorrect are exactly the same points he used to try and prove his position, in an earlier post.

If that's not a case of contradicting one's self, then I don't know what is

Carl just put him on your "ignor posts by" list. Much easier and less stress.

Mark

[sjastro]

For a more technical explanation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

For any masochists out there who fancy an intellectual challenge here is the 156 page PhD thesis on which the above abstract is based on.
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/downloa...s_complete.pdf

Enjoy

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

For any masochists out there who fancy an intellectual challenge here is the 156 page PhD thesis on which the above abstract is based on.
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/downloa...s_complete.pdf

Enjoy

Steven

I accept the challenge

If you don't see me in here from now on, it's most likely because I've gone wacko after reading this thesis

[renormalised (Carl)]

For a more technical explanation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Good paper.....easy to understand, but hard to read when you keep nodding off like I have been!!!

Have to reread it

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Just for you...go and reread this part of your answer. If you don't know why your answer doesn't make sense, then there's no point in me trying to explain it to you.

While you're at it....what makes you so eminently qualified to dismiss our answers offhand??.

Blather, but not an answer

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Try re-reading my previous post.



Of course there is empirical evidence. Any object that has a cosmological redshift z> 1.46 has a recessional velocity greater than c.
The reason we see some of the photons emitted was explained in my previous post.
Objects formed in this era occurred at a time before there was an acceleration in the expansion of the Universe. Photons that are intially superluminal become subluminal as the velocity of the Hubble sphere can eventually exceed the scale velocity of the Universe. These subluminal photons become observable.The objects themselves however continue to recede at superluminal velocities.

For a more technical explanation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

The Wikipedia article regarding the speed of light refers to objects travelling in space-time. When we refer to recessional velocities of objects, the objects are in fact stationary in space-time but are being carried by the Hubble flow or the expansion of space-time.

The Wikipedia article has no relevance.

Thanks for exposing what is wrong with your concept of the universe

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You know the stupid thing here, Steven. He states "what is clearly incorrect" and then mentions 3 points that he says are incorrect. It's funny how those same ones he states as incorrect are exactly the same points he used to try and prove his position, in an earlier post.

If that's not a case of contradicting one's self, then I don't know what is

Don't misquote me I asked which of the three points were incorrect, not that the were incorrect.
It it that are you trying a debating trick of misquoting to avoid giving an answer?

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Archy

Thanks for exposing what is wrong with your concept of the universe

Don't insult the intelligence of forum members by implying you have a comprehension of what is going on.

PS.

"Is this the best you can do."

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Archy

Don't misquote me I asked which of the three points were incorrect, not that the were incorrect.
It it that are you trying a debating trick of misquoting to avoid giving an answer?

Go learn the definition of obfuscation because that is what you excel at.

[marki]

Dont feed the troll

Mark

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

Don't misquote me I asked which of the three points were incorrect, not that the were incorrect.
It it that are you trying a debating trick of misquoting to avoid giving an answer?

Oh boy...

What is clearly incorrect:
1) For the cosmological model postulated by CraigS it is possible the the two galaxies will blink out at the same time.

2) However, the entire universe can only blink out if Y is a photon from the galaxy furthest from us and X is a photon from the galaxy nearest to us and all galaxies are receding so fast that light cannot reach us.

3) However some galaxies are not moving away from us. So the universe will not blink out all at once.

That is what you wrote. If you seem to think that is a question, then you don't even know how to construct a simple sentence asking one. This paragraph you wrote clearly states that these three points are clearly incorrect. And you accuse me of misquoting you!!!. You can't even quote yourself correctly!!!!. Several posts before the said post that particular paragraph was in, you use exactly the same points to try and prove your own position. A blind man could see that was completely contradictory and eminent proof of your complete lack of understanding of the subject in question.

Then you had the hide to bombastically accuse Steven of being complete wrong about his concept of the Universe. I doubt you even bothered to read the journal articles that he posted. As a matter of fact, it would be a 100% certainty that you wouldn't even understand anything that was being said in those articles. It wasn't Steven's concept of the Universe you're questioning and saying is wrong. It is the theoretically and empirically accepted view of the Universe by the vast majority of the entire scientific community that you are saying is wrong. Are you trying to tell us here that you know better than all those scientists, and they include myself and Steven. So, instead of accusing me of blathering, as you say...

Blather, but not an answer

how about actually being honest here and answering my question....

While you're at it....what makes you so eminently qualified to dismiss our answers offhand??.

Let's see if you can be honest with us, but more importantly with yourself, and answer the question.

The only person that is blathering here is you. We have repeatedly answered your questions only to have you completely ignore them and then for you to go on and attack our positions. We gave you plenty of chances to listen, even repeating ourselves several times in order for you to pickup what we were trying to get across to you. But all we've got is prattling nonsense in return.

Know what, I'm not going to continue on here. All I'm doing is wasting my breath on someone who isn't worth the effort.

Stop wasting our time here, posting. You're in way over your head and with your attitude, none of us here will even bother to answer you from now on.

[avandonk]

Can anyone explain to what my mobile phone is doing? It seems to have a life of it's own.

I bought it with the expectation of being able to make phone calls not some text message that tells me I am making a phone call!

Are the same dimwits who do not understand science now in control of my phone for some dubious marketing exercise?

All answers will automatically be sent to my phone.

Bert