It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Space does not expand faster then EM radiation. By that do you mean, if you had an empty universe and in one lane expandable space according to the laws in which space expands, and in another lane you had an emitter of light, and said ready set go, you are saying the space would reach the finish line (no matter how far the finish line was) first?




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Space does not expand faster then EM radiation. By that do you mean, if you had an empty universe and in one lane expandable space according to the laws in which space expands, and in another lane you had an emitter of light, and said ready set go, you are saying the space would reach the finish line (no matter how far the finish line was) first?


Well actually it does hes right there are galaxies moving away from us faster then light. First lets look at the universe and its rate of expansion.The hubble constant is measured at 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec. The speed of light is 300000 kilometers per second. So now we just need to do some math.The answer we get is that the two galaxies must be separated by around 4,200 megaparsecs (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers). So now we ask our selves have we observed this well yes oddly if we see a galaxy redshifted more then say 1.4. So there are all ready parts of our observable universe that cant see one another.

Now you ask wait how can we see it right well two things to take in to account its position where it used to be and the position we are remember were seeing galaxies were they were billions of years ago.A red shift of say 1.4 is about 4.6 billion years after the big bang. So if we are the half way point between two galaxies they will never see each other. As expansion continues eventually galaxies will start disappearing from our skies. Eventually the only galaxies we will see will be our local group. Unfortunately earth wont be here so i hope we figure out how to get out of our solar system.
edit on 11/16/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   

dragonridr

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

No I do not subscribe to alternative explanation either. Lol , like tired light
But imo similar Doppler shift should be apparent in CMBR as well.


Ok i think your confused first CMBR is shifted and they actually take that into account. Lets start with saying CMBR averages about 2.73 kelvin. Now this is thrown off when we look towards leos constellation. Well theres a shift when we look at leo reason is our solar system is heading in that direction at 370 kilometers per second relative to CMB, and the earth is orbiting at a speed of about 30 km/s. Now how do we know this well we can use CMBR to figure it out and when we display the information we can account for shifts in the spectrum and show what it looks like if we were standing still.Thats one of the reasons we know there is a doppler shift occurring we didnt just make it up.


Thanks for taking the time for your reply.
Just wondering if you have any link to a gif / and or some ball park
calculations to show the co relation between the 2 observed Doppler shifts



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

ImaFungi
Space does not expand faster then EM radiation. By that do you mean, if you had an empty universe and in one lane expandable space according to the laws in which space expands, and in another lane you had an emitter of light, and said ready set go, you are saying the space would reach the finish line (no matter how far the finish line was) first?
It matters how far the finish line is, so no, you can't say that is true no matter how far the finish line. The speed of light is constant, the expansion of space is not, it's accelerating. So, if the finish line was close, light would win. If the finish line is far enough away, space would win. The "tipping point" corresponds to a redshift (z value) of about 1.46 according to this source which says that in the lambda CDM model all objects with redshift greater than z ~ 1.46 are receding faster than the speed of light.:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe


Angelic Resurrection
Just wondering if you have any link to a gif / and or some ball park
calculations to show the co relation between the 2 observed Doppler shifts
You mean like this?

apod.nasa.gov...

edit on 17-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not really, its a good pic tho.
The source of CMBR is theoretically 14.5 billion light years away,
tho we are in the middle of it.
The source that far should move away from us / and or our local group faster than the speed of light,
as theorized by metric expansion of space.
So why don't we see this?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Not really, its a good pic tho.
The source of CMBR is theoretically 14.5 billion light years away,
Say the source is 14.5 billion years in the past and you are making sense.

It's not 14.5 billion light years away. Try about 45.7 billion light years:

Observable universe

According to calculations, the comoving distance (current proper distance) to particles from the CMBR, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about ... 45.7 billion light years



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If its 45.7 billion light years, then we should see ( but we don't ) the Doppler shift in CMBR
corresponding to metric expansion of space at faster than light speed.
The observed pattern of the CMBR does not imply that, does it?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If its 45.7 billion light years, then we should see ( but we don't ) the Doppler shift in CMBR
corresponding to metric expansion of space at faster than light speed.
The observed pattern of the CMBR does not imply that, does it?



You forget how old is the universe? Its 13.82 billion years old meaning it was much smaller then it is now and we see as it was not as it is now.then there is the fact the expansion is increasing not decreasing.So the simple answer is light takes its time getting here and we see it up until it no longer can make it to earth. Remember light will cross this distance even as its expanding up until the point its moving to fast for light to make the distance. But the trick is the light we see started its journey before the expansion made the distance to great. As i said eventually galaxies will disappear from are view just the same as if a candle was blown out. That light will still be heading towards us just more space will keep being created making it either longer to get here or not at all depending on distance. Then theirs the fact something strange you dont get about wmap its an echo of the universe.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

If its 45.7 billion light years, then we should see ( but we don't ) the Doppler shift in CMBR
corresponding to metric expansion of space at faster than light speed.
The observed pattern of the CMBR does not imply that, does it?
According to wiki, the Doppler shift in CMBR corresponding to metric expansion of space has the highest redshift z value of anything:

en.wikipedia.org...

The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.8 billion years ago
As I said before a redshift over 1.46 corresponds to faster than light, so 1089 is over 1.46, is it not?
edit on 18-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Figures read than

well but if that is the case, we shouldn't be detecting any CMBR
and or galaxies speeding away faster than light



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
well but if that is the case, we shouldn't be detecting any CMBR
and or galaxies speeding away faster than light
The paper I posted with the CMBR red/blue shift picture already explained that:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe


We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Figures read than

well but if that is the case, we shouldn't be detecting any CMBR
and or galaxies speeding away faster than light



Well first the red shift is different because of the cause.In CMBR the velocity is a recession velocity caused by the expansion of space, not a motion through space.You seem to have difficulty grasping this so lets look at it a bit different. Lets say for our example 14 billion light years would produce enough space to make it impossible for light to reach us. Now The entire time it was receding from us of course it emitted light. so the first 14 billion easy to account for but how would we see it after that well think about it since we are dealing with distance space is being created in front of our light as well as behind it. So this extends the time light can reach us out to about 42 billion light years or 3 times the distance.

Let me give you a direct example of what we are talking about GRB 090423 obviously a gamma ray burst this was touted by the media as the furthest object we spotted. Not true but lets move on the media said it was an explosion from 13 billion years ago they got this from the scientists saying the universe was only 630 million years old. So they wrongfully concluded that if the universe was 630 million deduct that from the age of the universe and we have how long this took to be observed on earth. And from that we know how long it took we know how far away it is. But as i explained expansion velocity due to space being created is different.So we knew is distance in the past by its red shift which was 8.2 this means that when we look at the red shift and calculate in expansion we get a distance from us of about 30 billion light years.

What im trying to get you to understand is were not just talking about frozen distances we cant stop time and measure.So when we look at one moment we get the distance it used to be not where it is. I suggest looking into what a hubble sphere is because i think your going to need to see the math if this explination doesnt work for you.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hey im an engineer and as such understand red shift, Doppler shift and the theory
about space being created and what have you.
But thanks for your effort.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hey im an engineer and as such understand red shift, Doppler shift and the theory
about space being created and what have you.
But thanks for your effort.



Then why do you keep asking questions when youve been given the answer in lots of different ways. Your the one that thought being able to see CMBR somehow disproved the expansion of space when in actually it confirms it.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Sorry to be pedantic but... being an engineer doesn't by definition mean you understand redshift. Same goes for being a scientist.

Ask a biology major what redshift is... they might give you some fluff they remember from a lecture they had years and years ago, but as to being able to understand these points... they probably wont.

Should a engineer and scientist be able to grasp these concepts however... the answer is obviously yes they should
edit on 18-11-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

dragonridr

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Hey im an engineer and as such understand red shift, Doppler shift and the theory
about space being created and what have you.
But thanks for your effort.



Your the one that thought being able to see CMBR somehow disproved the expansion of space when in actually it confirms it.


Infact it confirms my view.

Lol, and space being created between group of galaxies, that expands faster than light, C'mon



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?


Yes time slows down in a gravitational field, otherwise the big bang wouldn't have happened.
Thousands of the so called expts have been interpreted erroneously, to suit GR

Im telling ya, what I say will be proved right sooner or later.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection

Arbitrageur

Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Yes I did read that paper and it is using
GR and SR to wrap round the explanation and its bound to fail
sooner or later
So you think it's bound to fail because according to you general relativity is wrong, and time speeds up in a gravitational field, contrary to thousands of very precise measurements showing that time slows down in a gravitational field, etc?


Yes time slows down in a gravitational field, otherwise the big bang wouldn't have happened.
Thousands of the so called expts have been interpreted erroneously, to suit GR

Im telling ya, what I say will be proved right sooner or later.


I believe your trying to take credit for work done by a man named Einstein.He said gravity can cause space and time to distort or more accurately stretch, meaning gravity causes time to slow down so guess what your right just isnt your idea.




top topics



 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join