Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bedd7694-e29d-48f8-9309-3f233aa31f02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584113 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: > > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said: > >> > >>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which > >>> show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? > >> Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions > >> that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of > >> the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue > >> shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can > >> be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? > >> > >> Mikko > > > > The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars > > that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the > > center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the > > black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we > > move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are > > moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and > > blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars. > > > > The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations. > > An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away > > faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side. > Nothing Ed Lake says above means as much as what he doesn't say. He doesn't > answer my question, apparently because he can't. If he could he could also > support, at least to some extents, the opionions he has expressed in earlier > messages. But he didn't, so we can expect that his so far unjustified > opinions will remain unjustified. Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?" Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra at 1,342,161 mph. Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter. That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away. And, of course, there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and in photon arrival frequencies. Or we can just Google the answer: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/ Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t498p3$jjk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584130 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: >> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said: >>>> >>>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which >>>>> show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? >>>> Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions >>>> that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of >>>> the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue >>>> shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can >>>> be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? >>>> >>>> Mikko >>> >>> The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars >>> that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the >>> center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the >>> black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we >>> move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are >>> moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and >>> blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars. >>> >>> The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations. >>> An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away >>> faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side. >> Nothing Ed Lake says above means as much as what he doesn't say. He doesn't >> answer my question, apparently because he can't. If he could he could also >> support, at least to some extents, the opionions he has expressed in earlier >> messages. But he didn't, so we can expect that his so far unjustified >> opinions will remain unjustified. > > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?" > > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra > at 1,342,161 mph. In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun, the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are moving. Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were moving. > > Using trigonometry we can view things from one point in space in the > summer and from another point about 185 million miles away in the winter. > That allows us to measure distances to some objects in space. A type > of star called a "Cepheid variable" pulses at a specific rate, and > because light travels at a specific rate, we can determine how far away > a Cepheid variable is even if it is trillions of miles away. And, of course, > there are ways to measure changes in light frequency and in photon arrival > frequencies. > > Or we can just Google the answer: > https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astronomy-questions-answers/is-it-true-that-the-andromeda-galaxy-is-blueshifted-and-moving-toward-us/ > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6abf6960-ca5e-43ae-9b73-26e43d5304ean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584137 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > >> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: > >> > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: > >>>> On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said: > >>>> > >>>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which > >>>>> show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? > >>>> Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions > >>>> that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of > >>>> the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue > >>>> shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can > >>>> be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? > >>>> > >>>> Mikko > >>> > >>> The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars > >>> that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the > >>> center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the > >>> black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we > >>> move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are > >>> moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and > >>> blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars. > >>> > >>> The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations. > >>> An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away > >>> faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side. > >> Nothing Ed Lake says above means as much as what he doesn't say. He doesn't > >> answer my question, apparently because he can't. If he could he could also > >> support, at least to some extents, the opionions he has expressed in earlier > >> messages. But he didn't, so we can expect that his so far unjustified > >> opinions will remain unjustified. > > > > Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?" > > > > Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins > > on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. > > The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And > > the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra > > at 1,342,161 mph. > In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete > closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun, > the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a > lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so > what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with > respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could > mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are > moving. > > Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s > motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way > that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from > Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be > if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were > moving. Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. That determination was the result of the discovery that NEARLY everything in our visible universe appears red-shifted to us, and the farther away an object is from us, the more red-shifted it is. Andromeda is somewhat blue shifted. It is moving toward us and is evidently going to crash into the Milky Way in about five billion years. There are other objects in that general direction that are also blue shifted. That could be because we are moving in that direction as we move away from the point of the Big Bang. Plus, all the stars in Andromeda, like all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy, are orbiting around a Black Hole that is at the center of every galaxy we can see. Logically, therefore, neither Andromeda nor the Milky Way can be stationary. And "close laps" only apply things in orbit. Neither Andromeda or the Milky Way is in orbit around anything - as far as we know. They are simply moving away from the point of the Big Bang - like virtually all other galaxies. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t49kv8$4l4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584160 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2022-04-24 18:12:48 +0000, Ed Lake said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How can I be a "silpsist" if others have done the observations which >>>>>>> show how fast Andromeda is moving and how far away Andromeda is located? >>>>>> Have they really? Astronomers who made those measurement used assumptions >>>>>> that you consider wrong. For example, you don't believe that the speed of >>>>>> the Andromeda galaxy can be determined from the measurement of the blue >>>>>> shift of its light. And the side way movement is zero as accurately as can >>>>>> be determined. So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mikko >>>>> >>>>> The speed of Andromeda can only be measured RELATIVE TO US. The stars >>>>> that comprise Andromeda move in an orbit around the black hole that is the >>>>> center of the Andromeda galaxy. Meanwhile, we are in an orbit around the >>>>> black hole that is at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. And that means we >>>>> move at a different speed away from the Andromeda stars that are >>>>> moving toward us versus the stars that are moving away from us. Red and >>>>> blue shifting results from our movement away from or toward those stars. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with this forum is that there is no way to provide illustrations. >>>>> An illustration of TWO rotating galaxies would show how we move away >>>>> faster from stars on one side of Andromeda than stars on the other side. >>>> Nothing Ed Lake says above means as much as what he doesn't say. He doesn't >>>> answer my question, apparently because he can't. If he could he could also >>>> support, at least to some extents, the opionions he has expressed in earlier >>>> messages. But he didn't, so we can expect that his so far unjustified >>>> opinions will remain unjustified. >>> >>> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda >>> galaxy is moving?" >>> >>> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins >>> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. >>> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And >>> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra >>> at 1,342,161 mph. >> In those cases, we know about the motion because these things complete >> closed orbits. The spinning of the earth, the earth’s orbit around the sun, >> the sun’s orbit around the galaxy are all examples. You can’t complete a >> lap without moving. But now Andromeda…. No evidence of a closed lap, so >> what’s the evidence that it is absolutely moving? RELATIVELY moving with >> respect to us, sure, we can do that with a number of means. But that could >> mean Andromeda is not moving and we are moving, or vice versa, or both are >> moving. >> >> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s >> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way >> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from >> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be >> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were >> moving. > > Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that > everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is no identifiable point these are all moving away from. Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First, it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back, recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is actually said. Then, when you have absorbed that fact, this means that there IS NO POINT IN SPACE that is absolutely stationary that all galaxies are receding from. This also means that the ONLY THING that is said is that galaxies are receding, on the whole, from each other. (Andromeda and the Milky Way are a notable exception to this average behavior. That receding from each other is a statement about RELATIVE MOTION only. If I tell you that two trucks are observed to be receding from each other, you have no idea whether this means one of them is stationary and the other moving, or whether both trucks are moving. You’d need some external reference, which is absent from the statement that the two truck are receding from each other. Likewise, if I say galaxies are on the whole receding from each other (which is the statement that the Big Bang ACTUALLY SAYS), then you don’t know whether one is stationary and the other moving or whether both are moving; all you have is a statement of RELATIVE motion. > That determination was the result of the discovery that NEARLY everything in > our visible universe appears red-shifted to us, and the farther away an object is > from us, the more red-shifted it is. > > Andromeda is somewhat blue shifted. It is moving toward us and is evidently > going to crash into the Milky Way in about five billion years. There are other > objects in that general direction that are also blue shifted. That could be > because we are moving in that direction as we move away from the point > of the Big Bang. > > Plus, all the stars in Andromeda, like all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy, are > orbiting around a Black Hole that is at the center of every galaxy we can see. > > Logically, therefore, neither Andromeda nor the Milky Way can be stationary. > > And "close laps" only apply things in orbit. Neither Andromeda or the Milky > Way is in orbit around anything - as far as we know. That’s right. That’s why the rule about how we know the earth is rotating and revolving and the Milky Way is rotating and so we know they are MOVING does NOT work for galaxies. You CANNOT tell that they are moving BECAUSE they are not orbiting. > They are simply moving > away from the point of the Big Bang - like virtually all other galaxies. Just a reminder: There IS NO center of the Big Bang. This is what the Big Bang model says, whether you can make sense of that or not. > > Ed > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b37acaa2-7f7c-4b0c-a1ff-c255fc0e9826n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584171 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: (snip) > >> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s > >> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way > >> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from > >> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be > >> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were > >> moving. > > > > Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that > > everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. > Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big > Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything > is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is > no identifiable point these are all moving away from. That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe. And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe." Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes": https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf > > Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES > SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this > IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct > opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First, > it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what > you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back, > recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is > actually said. (snip more of the same) Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t49n41$118e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584174 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > (snip) > >>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s >>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way >>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from >>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be >>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were >>>> moving. >>> >>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that >>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. >> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big >> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything >> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is >> no identifiable point these are all moving away from. > > That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG > universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe. Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake Cosmology. The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin of the Big Bang at all. Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it. > And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe." > > Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years > before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my > paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes": > https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf > >> >> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES >> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this >> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct >> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First, >> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what >> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back, >> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is >> actually said. > (snip more of the same) > > Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are. I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model says. If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills. The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it IS an obligation in physics. But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model, properly understood. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1fa98f82-e758-4b48-8754-ffbf091d4f0an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584177 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > >>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s > >>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way > >>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from > >>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be > >>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were > >>>> moving. > >>> > >>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that > >>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. > >> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big > >> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything > >> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is > >> no identifiable point these are all moving away from. > > > > That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG > > universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe. > Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake > Cosmology. > > The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies > outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin > of the Big Bang at all. > > Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not > with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it. > > And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe." > > > > Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years > > before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my > > paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes": > > https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf > > > >> > >> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES > >> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this > >> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct > >> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First, > >> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what > >> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back, > >> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is > >> actually said. > > (snip more of the same) > > > > Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are. > I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not > particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang > model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model > says. > > If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense > to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The > biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model > to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills. > The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it > IS an obligation in physics. > > But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter > to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model, > properly understood. When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model." In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as far as the farthest visible star. And you see that as the end of the universe, even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO? That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your expanding universe? That is a forbidden question. LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding unless there is something to expand into. Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything that we know about science. And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you: "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent. Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth or space-based instruments, and therefore lie outside the observable universe." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4br2n$1lmu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584245 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>>>> Note that the blue-shifting link you mention below is about Andromeda’s >>>>>> motion RELATIVE to us. To put a fine point on it, if it was the Milky Way >>>>>> that was moving and Andromeda were not moving at all, then the light from >>>>>> Andromeda would still be blue-shifted, in EXACTLY the same way it would be >>>>>> if Andromeda were moving and the Milky Way were not, or if both were >>>>>> moving. >>>>> >>>>> Then you need to look at things logically. Years ago it was determined that >>>>> everything in our visible universe is moving away from the point of the Big Bang. >>>> Unfortunately, you have not read correctly. There is no “point of the Big >>>> Bang” that everything is moving away from. What is true is that everything >>>> is moving away from EACH OTHER (aside from local variations) but there is >>>> no identifiable point these are all moving away from. >>> >>> That is because our "observable universe" is only a tiny fraction of "the BIG BANG >>> universe," and the point of the Big Bang is not within our observable universe. >> Now you are no longer talking about the Big Bang model, but Ed Lake >> Cosmology. >> >> The Big Bang model does not say that there is a stationary origin that lies >> outside our observable universe. It says that there IS NO stationary origin >> of the Big Bang at all. >> >> Please wrap your head around what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS, not >> with added statements that you put in to try to make sense of it. >>> And the Big Bang universe is expanding into "the Infinite Universe." >>> >>> Things expanded away from the point of the Big Bang for many thousands of years >>> before atoms formed that could emit light. You can read all the details in my >>> paper on "Logical versus Mathematical Universes": >>> https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf >>> >>>> >>>> Now, listen to me Ed. It doesn’t matter whether you think IT ONLY MAKES >>>> SENSE that there is a single point that everything is receding from, this >>>> IS NOT what the Big Bang model says. It says something almost the direct >>>> opposite, that THERE IS NO POINT that everything is receding from. First, >>>> it’s important for you to recognize that what is ACTUALLY SAID is not what >>>> you think it should say. Then, it will be important to sit back, >>>> recognizing what is actually said, and THEN try to make sense of what is >>>> actually said. >>> (snip more of the same) >>> >>> Read my paper. It explains how totally wrong you are. >> I’m talking about what the Big Bang model ACTUALLY SAYS. I’m not >> particularly interested in Ed Lake Cosmology that modifies the Big Bang >> model by adding things that are actually counter to what the Big Bang model >> says. >> >> If you have an ALTERNATE to the Big Bang model, which you think makes sense >> to you, then it is up to you to turn that into a viable physical model. The >> biggest part of that responsibility is doing calculations with your model >> to make testable predictions, which — yes — will require some math skills. >> The physicists who put together the Big Bang model did do that, because it >> IS an obligation in physics. >> >> But don’t try to add things to the Big Bang model that are actually counter >> to what Big Bang says, and then try to pass it off as the Big Bang model, >> properly understood. > > When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really > mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model." No, it is THE Big Bang model. You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in, that’s all. > > In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as > far as the farthest visible star. No, the Big Bang model says no such thing. > And you see that as the end of the universe, > even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO? > That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is > nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your > expanding universe? That is a forbidden question. None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers. Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your poor choices of the materials you consume. > > LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding > unless there is something to expand into. No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge moving into?” But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still infinite. Does expansion mean anything?” The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to imagine this. Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward, through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between. Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line, and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite thing can be thought of as expanding. > > Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything > that we know about science. No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand years ago. > > And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you: > > "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent. Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction. And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up. There is no center, there is no edge. > Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the > Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth or space-based instruments, > and therefore lie outside the observable universe." > > Source: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#The_universe_versus_the_observable_universe > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc295045-a8f5-4a4b-a864-78cc29ecd486n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584271 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really > > mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model." > No, it is THE Big Bang model. > > You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of > disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word > for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of > poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in, > that’s all. I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics, because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not understood, whether the math works or not. > > > > In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as > > far as the farthest visible star. > No, the Big Bang model says no such thing. How far does it reach? > > And you see that as the end of the universe, > > even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO? > > That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is > > nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your > > expanding universe? That is a forbidden question. > None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have > simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY > think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers. > Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of > information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your > poor choices of the materials you consume. I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS. > > > > LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding > > unless there is something to expand into. > No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite > volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of > that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge > moving into?” > > But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE > space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also > characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still > infinite. Does expansion mean anything?” Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate." To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC. It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL. > > The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can > be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to > imagine this. It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA. > > Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to > one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the > period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward, > through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s > a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this > line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between. > Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks > every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now > also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are > all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead > of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note > that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line, > and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite > thing can be thought of as expanding. It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science, if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just an unverifiable BELIEF. > > > > Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything > > that we know about science. > No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the > Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the > only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends > and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand > years ago. > > > > And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you: > > > > "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent. > Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction. > > And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the > universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the > universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up. > There is no center, there is no edge. WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe." WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have begun somewhere else. We see no POINT in our "observable universe" which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST have begun outside of our "observable universe." It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and science books which support it. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4bvkv$1ttu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584279 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really >>> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model." >> No, it is THE Big Bang model. >> >> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of >> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word >> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of >> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in, >> that’s all. > > I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics, > because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not > understood, whether the math works or not. Nope. Mathematics is a language that COMMUNICATES the logic. You do not understand that language (you are illiterate in mathematics — you literally do not understand what an equation means when it is shown), and so you miss the logic that the mathematics has expressed. > >>> >>> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as >>> far as the farthest visible star. >> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing. > > How far does it reach? It could well be infinite. No edge. The other possibility is that it is finite with no edge. The *surface* of a sphere (not the sphere itself) has no edge. Remember the old maps of the world that imagined there was an edge to the world and that ships would fall off the edge. There is no edge in reality to the earth’s surface, and yet it is not infinite. > >>> And you see that as the end of the universe, >>> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO? >>> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is >>> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your >>> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question. >> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have >> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY >> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers. >> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of >> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your >> poor choices of the materials you consume. > > I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from > a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS. I’m happy to provide non-internet sources. You up for that? > >>> >>> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding >>> unless there is something to expand into. >> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite >> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of >> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge >> moving into?” >> >> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE >> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also >> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still >> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?” > > Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; > impossible to measure or calculate." Yes. > > To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC. > It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL. Not true. Even the Greeks knew this two thousand years ago. That’s what I’m trying to explain below. > >> >> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can >> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to >> imagine this. > > It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA. Nope, it’s really straightforward to understand. If the Greeks can understand it, surely you can too. Try harder. > >> >> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to >> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the >> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward, >> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s >> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this >> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between. >> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks >> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now >> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are >> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead >> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note >> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line, >> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite >> thing can be thought of as expanding. > > It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science, > if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just > an unverifiable BELIEF. No it is not illogical. I just gave you something that coheres logically. It may not be familiar to you. You may only be familiar with the expansion of FINITE things, but that doesn’t means that the expansion of infinite things is self-contradictory, as I showed above. As I said, the Greeks understood this 2000 years ago, and I’m hard pressed to understand why you say that it’s all impossible. > >>> >>> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything >>> that we know about science. >> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the >> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the >> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends >> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand >> years ago. >>> >>> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you: >>> >>> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent. >> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction. >> >> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the >> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the >> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up. >> There is no center, there is no edge. > > WE are at the center of our "observable universe." Which doesn’t correlate to any center of the universe beyond our observation limit. There is no center in the Big Bang. None. > We can see 13.8 billion > light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because > 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights > came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe." > > WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is > ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have > begun somewhere else. No. There does not need to be a center. See the example I gave above, which the Greeks understood. > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST > have begun outside of our "observable universe." > > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and > science books which support it. There are certainly a WHOLE LOT of textbooks that say that there IS NO CENTER of the Big Bang. It’s clear you cannot make sense of what those textbooks say. You’re knee-jerk response, then, is to say that all those books are wrong and you are right. That’s not the best response. The better response is to notice that there is something you’re probably not understanding. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4c6dj$14n9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584289 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really >>>> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model." >>> No, it is THE Big Bang model. >>> >>> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of >>> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word >>> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of >>> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in, >>> that’s all. >> >> I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics, >> because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not >> understood, whether the math works or not. > > Nope. Mathematics is a language that COMMUNICATES the logic. You do not > understand that language (you are illiterate in mathematics — you literally > do not understand what an equation means when it is shown), and so you miss > the logic that the mathematics has expressed. > >> >>>> >>>> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as >>>> far as the farthest visible star. >>> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing. >> >> How far does it reach? > > It could well be infinite. No edge. > > The other possibility is that it is finite with no edge. The *surface* of a > sphere (not the sphere itself) has no edge. Remember the old maps of the > world that imagined there was an edge to the world and that ships would > fall off the edge. There is no edge in reality to the earth’s surface, and > yet it is not infinite. > >> >>>> And you see that as the end of the universe, >>>> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO? >>>> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is >>>> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your >>>> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question. >>> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have >>> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY >>> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers. >>> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of >>> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your >>> poor choices of the materials you consume. >> >> I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from >> a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS. > > I’m happy to provide non-internet sources. You up for that? > >> >>>> >>>> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding >>>> unless there is something to expand into. >>> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite >>> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of >>> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge >>> moving into?” >>> >>> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE >>> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also >>> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still >>> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?” >> >> Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; >> impossible to measure or calculate." > > Yes. > >> >> To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC. >> It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL. > > Not true. Even the Greeks knew this two thousand years ago. That’s what I’m > trying to explain below. > >> >>> >>> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can >>> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to >>> imagine this. >> >> It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA. > > Nope, it’s really straightforward to understand. If the Greeks can > understand it, surely you can too. Try harder. > >> >>> >>> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to >>> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the >>> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward, >>> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s >>> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this >>> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between. >>> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks >>> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now >>> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are >>> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead >>> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note >>> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line, >>> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite >>> thing can be thought of as expanding. >> >> It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science, >> if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just >> an unverifiable BELIEF. > > No it is not illogical. I just gave you something that coheres logically. > It may not be familiar to you. You may only be familiar with the expansion > of FINITE things, but that doesn’t means that the expansion of infinite > things is self-contradictory, as I showed above. As I said, the Greeks > understood this 2000 years ago, and I’m hard pressed to understand why you > say that it’s all impossible. > >> >>>> >>>> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything >>>> that we know about science. >>> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the >>> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the >>> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends >>> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand >>> years ago. >>>> >>>> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you: >>>> >>>> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent. >>> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction. >>> >>> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the >>> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the >>> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up. >>> There is no center, there is no edge. >> >> WE are at the center of our "observable universe." > > Which doesn’t correlate to any center of the universe beyond our > observation limit. There is no center in the Big Bang. None. > >> We can see 13.8 billion >> light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because >> 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights >> came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe." >> >> WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is >> ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have >> begun somewhere else. > > No. There does not need to be a center. See the example I gave above, which > the Greeks understood. > >> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" >> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST >> have begun outside of our "observable universe." >> >> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and >> science books which support it. > > There are certainly a WHOLE LOT of textbooks that say that there IS NO > CENTER of the Big Bang. > > It’s clear you cannot make sense of what those textbooks say. You’re > knee-jerk response, then, is to say that all those books are wrong and you > are right. That’s not the best response. The better response is to notice > that there is something you’re probably not understanding. > >> >> Ed >> > > > Just as a follow up, it’s worth mentioning that something that is unfamiliar to you is not immediately illogical. There are LOTS of things in the real world that do not fit into your world view derived from your everyday experience. So things that have curvature without moving, infinite spaces that are expanding, finite spaces that have no edges, particles that do not travel in straight lines even without a force acting on them — these are all ideas that are new to you, which means they are going to feel foreign. That does NOT mean that they are illogical. Don’t assume that everything that does make sense will obviously make sense to you right away. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jctnciFec67U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584279 |
On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST > have begun outside of our "observable universe." > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and > science books which support it. You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away things are from us the faster they are receding,"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1afaca1-8912-4bb5-a8cf-e1eba7944377n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584311 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: > On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST > > have begun outside of our "observable universe." > > > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and > > science books which support it. > You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away > things are from us the faster they are receding," Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri, everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems to be moving away from everything else. BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe, we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth. Draw a point with lines moving away from that point. Then pick a spot along one of the lines where Earth would be. Points on all the OTHER lines are moving away from Earth. If things move faster at the central point than at distant points, then even points in the Earth's line will appear to be moving away. The points ahead of us are moving faster than than we are, and the points behind us are moving slower and are dropping behind. Maybe the problem here is that people think of the Big Bang as being like a dynamite explosion. A big hole is left at the point of the explosion, and everything that was blown away traveled at the same speed. There was nothing to cause that kind of explosion. The Big Bang "explosion" would have been more like unleashing a mass of springs. The first springs travel faster than later springs because the first springs had more springs behind them pushing them. The Big Bang resulted from everything being COMPRESSED too much, and it all just suddenly DECOMPRESSED. If everything eventually slows down, and gravity pulls everything back together again, we'll have another Big Bang. That's the way that makes sense. An "explosion" makes no sense. It's sometimes called "The Big Bounce Theory." https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a34941841/big-bounce-universe-theory/ Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcu11lFg2rvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584315 |
On 4/27/2022 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe." >> >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and >>> science books which support it. >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away >> things are from us the faster they are receding," > > Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri, > everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems > to be moving away from everything else. > > BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe, > we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from > that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth. There's nothing incontrovertible indicating that is true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0cbf31b-2dd5-4bdd-9017-dbbbf75c78bcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584325 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:14:02 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: > On 4/27/2022 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: > >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >> > >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST > >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe." > >> > >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and > >>> science books which support it. > > >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away > >> things are from us the faster they are receding," > > > > Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri, > > everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems > > to be moving away from everything else. > > > > BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe, > > we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from > > that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth. > There's nothing incontrovertible indicating that is true. Yes, there is. But illustrations are needed to assist in the explanation. There are illustrations in my paper on "Logical vs Mathematical Universes": https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v2.pdf This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have other things I need to do. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4eg8f$cal$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584315 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe." >> >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and >>> science books which support it. >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away >> things are from us the faster they are receding," > > Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri, > everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems > to be moving away from everything else. > > BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe, > we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from > that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth. And the fact that there is no such observed behavior does not mean that the point does exist but it’s out of our observable universe. > > Draw a point with lines moving away from that point. Then pick a spot > along one of the lines where Earth would be. Points on all the OTHER lines > are moving away from Earth. If things move faster at the central point > than at distant points, then even points in the Earth's line will appear to be > moving away. The points ahead of us are moving faster than than we are, > and the points behind us are moving slower and are dropping behind. > > Maybe the problem here is that people think of the Big Bang as being > like a dynamite explosion. A big hole is left at the point of the explosion, > and everything that was blown away traveled at the same speed. > > There was nothing to cause that kind of explosion. The Big Bang "explosion" > would have been more like unleashing a mass of springs. The first springs > travel faster than later springs because the first springs had more springs > behind them pushing them. OK, and note that it would be foolish to then say that if the Big Bang happened inside our observable universe, then we’d look for the hole. Because no hole would be expected. Right? > > The Big Bang resulted from everything being COMPRESSED too much, > and it all just suddenly DECOMPRESSED. If everything eventually slows > down, and gravity pulls everything back together again, we'll have another > Big Bang. > > That's the way that makes sense. An "explosion" makes no sense. > It's sometimes called "The Big Bounce Theory." > https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a34941841/big-bounce-universe-theory/ > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20a5607f-5955-4e3b-b5d3-c68a65ef2ee8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584311 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: > On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > > We see no POINT in our "observable universe" > > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST > > have begun outside of our "observable universe." > > > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and > > science books which support it. > You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away > things are from us the faster they are receding," Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe. If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot. I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding. I've got too many other things I need to work on. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4e9u8$175v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584360 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe." >> >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and >>> science books which support it. >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away >> things are from us the faster they are receding," > > Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe. > > If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would > see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away > from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot. No, it’s not true that a Big Bang or even an ordinary explosion necessarily puts a big empty spot in the middle. What you have in mind is a mental assumption, that at the onset of this “explosion”, everything departs from the center with roughly the same speed. That assumption WOULD produce debris that occupies some shell of expanding radius, empty in the middle and empty outside of it. That’s the kind of thing you see with designed fireworks. If on the other hand, everything has a flat spectrum of speeds leaving the “explosion”, then some are slow and some are fast and the distribution is even between the extremes. In this case there are certainly things that have practically zero speed leaving the center, compared with the Milky Way’s speed, and those would remain close to the center even today. You see? So much of what you imagine is bound by your everyday experience, and you assume that any “explosion” is going to be like explosions you’ve see in everyday life. And those are bad assumptions. That’s not LOGIC you’re applying, it’s contact with the everyday. LOGIC is what it is that I described in the previous paragraph that shows how there could well be no empty spot near the center of any “explosion”, LOGICALLY, even if it’s not something you’re familiar with seeing. > > I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that > are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding. > I've got too many other things I need to work on. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcvth9Fr7riU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584360 |
On 4/28/2022 9:19 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote: >> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >> >>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe" >>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST >>> have begun outside of our "observable universe." >> >>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and >>> science books which support it. >> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away >> things are from us the faster they are receding," > > Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe. > > If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would > see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away > from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot. > > I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that > are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding. > I've got too many other things I need to work on. So let me ask you this, if everything is moving away from us and we (the earth) has been here for 4.53 billion years, why aren't we sitting in a hole?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t4efqo$oj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #584377 |
On 2022-04-28 16:26:11 +0000, whodat said: > So let me ask you this, if everything is moving away from us and we (the > earth) has been here for 4.53 billion years, why aren't we sitting in a > hole? Maybe we are. It looks like there is a region around Milky Way, known as "Local Hole", where the density of galaxies is unusually low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBC_Void Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web