Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Godfree]

Sorry, what significance are you claiming for the 1 billion years?

Well John you are supposed to be an expert here ,
it's pretty simple , quite obvious I would have thought ,
The universe according to the bbt is 13.7 billion years old ,
we can see images as old as 13 billion years , fully formed galaxies ,
that only leaves .7 billion years for them to get there and form galaxies ,
thats one of the things wrong with the bb , not enough time ,
to form large old galaxies with massive black holes at their center ,
since you didn't answer the question on the csl ,
try that one , I'v got plenty more ,
700 million years , do you consider that enough for a large galaxy to,
form . Taking into consideration the time it takes to get out there ,and what would you guess as to how long it took the universe to expand ,
to it's current size , because 52 times the speed of light is .5 billion years times 26 for the distance the matter has traveled, 26 billion light years , in .5 billion years , thats giving .2 billion years to form the galaxy .
our sun has a 10 billion year life cycle ,
if galaxies are getting bigger black holes by gobbling up planets and suns,
this takes time ,
I do all this off the top of my head , your the one who studied it ,
it should be you explaining the universe to me,,!!!

[Godfree]

Well thank you for a nice response , it's nice to see an attempt to expand our understanding of each other and the topics we post ,
Unlike Johns one liner , I will simply have to ask him to expand on that ,
Are we in a position to judge , yes of course we are ,
I took my car to the carburetor shop , was playing up ,
they guy said I don't open my tool box for less than $300 ,
I refused , left and went home to do it myself ,
it took five minutes and cost me nothing ,!!!
people like to make what they do sound special and complicated ,
but as a jack of all trades , who happily plays in the back of TV's when they are going , I can tell you , it's a lot easier than they would have you believe,
When the bbt was written , we couldn't see 13 billion light years ,
but now we can , and you double that to get to the edge ,
of what we call the known universe , cos we are sort of in the middle ,
about half way from the middle to the outer edge ,
so if the bbt theory is true , billions of galaxies of matter ,
shot out at up to 52 times the speed of light , to suddenly stop or slow down to less than 2 times the speed of light , or we wouldn't be seeing them ,
form galaxies and are now accelerating again ,
fudge like that makes creation sound believable .
I did offer you a web site that offered the science of alternative models ,
EJ Lerner wrote a book called the big bang never happened ,
he has the physics expertise to make such a call ,
he isn't the only person with a physics degree that dis-agree's with the bbt
Dr Gentry , Dr Hannes Alfven ,Prof Geoffrey Burbidge ,Dr Halton Arp ,
and of course Sir Fred Hoyle , just to name a few ,
think about it like a political party , they have the party line ,
and they expect everybody to stick to it, policies don't vary much ,
but they will tell you , their party is superior ,
science is similar , they are trying to sell you on the idea that,
their work is special , and deserves more funding ,
the more people who think the bbt is credible ,
the more likely government is to fund it , so they put spin on the politicians ,
who put spin on us , and all we get is a bunch of fluffy meaningless ,
equations and claims that only serve to confuse rather than ,
expand our knowledge,
so the government is being conned , we are being conned ,
and why , to keep the dream alive,,???
the bb dream , creation ,,???
or just to keep the funding coming,,???

I have no idea what you are talking about? Funding for what? Physics? Conned about what? You think physicists do this for a gag?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how science and physics works. There are always those who will challenge the current theory but until they come-up with the maths and the experiments that will prove or disprove what they say they will be considered on the fringe of the science or the physics. When they do or can make some predictions that can be tested that the current theory cannot account for then things will change. Science and Physics are not like religions.

I think you are allowing your religious dislike to colour your beliefs about how science and physics works. I'm appalled at this, "all we get is a bunch of fluffy meaningless equations", as it shows to me that you are not much better than the theists about such matters.

Quoting authorities is not knowledge, whilst reading them may be fun unless you can talk their language of maths and physics you can have no idea whether what they say is true or not.

I also think that you are just searching for something to replace your lost faith and are making an error of trying to recreate it with science and metaphysics. Give this up, as philosophy has, and look to Phenomenology for the area where Logic and Reason may be of use..

As I stated Arising , I never lost any faith , I wasn't brought up religious ,
I have never been religious or had a faith ,,!!!
What I'm trying to do is engage you in some of these issues ,
seems you don't want to elaborate or expand your understanding ,
you don't seem to want to apply your thinking at all ,
do you understand that I am proving things must have traveled many times the speed of light to form the universe as we know it today ,
this isn't a theory or a debate , this is fact ,
we can see 13 billion year old galaxies ,
in both directions , adding up to 26 billion light years,
do you accept that this is real , do you think I'm fudging the numbers ,
why is it you don't seem to grasp the significants of what I am saying ,
Einsteins cosmic speed limit has been well and truly smashed,
Einstein was wrong , things can and do go faster than light,,,fact,,,!!!!

[John]

Sorry, what significance are you claiming for the 1 billion years?

Well John you are supposed to be an expert here ,

I've repeatedly said that being able to out argue me on this subject matter is not relevant because I am not an expert on the subject. I understand the rigour and discipline required to "do physics" and I understand some of the arguments being discussed and that is why I defer to the experts. The people you need to convince are the professional physicists but I can see that if your whole view of the universe is based on bamboozling non-specialists into thinking you know more than them then you probably have convinced yourself that you're some sort of expert. Until you write a paper or at the very least get a degree, as far as I'm concerned, you're not.

I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that some things are located firmly in the realm of the expert but that's just tough.

[Notvacka]

Godfree, you are indeed free to go on believing that the big bang never happened. The universe is what it is regardless of our beliefs, and I can see no harm in it, though it's obvious that you haven't understood the subject matter and most of your arguments make little sense.

If you truly are interested in cosmology, I still recommend that you read a few books on the subject.

[chaz wyman]

Godfree, you are indeed free to go on believing that the big bang never happened. The universe is what it is regardless of our beliefs, and I can see no harm in it, though it's obvious that you haven't understood the subject matter and most of your arguments make little sense.

If you truly are interested in cosmology, I still recommend that you read a few books on the subject.

I have to agree.

You might like to start with Arthur Koerstler's The Sleepwalkers.

You might take heart from the fact that every single cosmology that has ever been devised since the dawn of time, except the latest one has proved to be faulty, lacking, and in need of replacement.
All have endeavoured to explain the evidence or as the phrase goes to "save the appearances."
To your dismay, though, you will also find that the simplest of these systems, is still beyond your mathematical capacity to understand, as thinkers with greater skill in maths than you or I have devoted their lives to the completion of these systems.
It may well turn out to be the case that the BBT will at some point, no longer prove adequate. But it will not be from the likes of you or I that a new and better fit will replace it.
If you have any humility, you will come away with the certain knowledge that you are not qualified to judge which cosmology is the best fit, let alone which is the right one.

[Godfree]

Sorry, what significance are you claiming for the 1 billion years?

Well John you are supposed to be an expert here ,

I've repeatedly said that being able to out argue me on this subject matter is not relevant because I am not an expert on the subject. I understand the rigour and discipline required to "do physics" and I understand some of the arguments being discussed and that is why I defer to the experts. The people you need to convince are the professional physicists but I can see that if your whole view of the universe is based on bamboozling non-specialists into thinking you know more than them then you probably have convinced yourself that you're some sort of expert. Until you write a paper or at the very least get a degree, as far as I'm concerned, you're not.

I understand that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that some things are located firmly in the realm of the expert but that's just tough.

Well here's whats convincing me I'm the expert ,
I pose questions , and nobody comes up with a counter claim ,
I asked you to explain the csl , you didn't , I asked you to look at,
the age and size of our most distant galaxies , no response to that ,,??
Chaz was the same , I make a claim and people tell me I'm not qualified to make such a claim , they don't prove me wrong , offer an alternative explanation , put their opinion forward ,
they just tell me I'm not qualified to judge,
there have been many great discoveries made by lay people ,
I believe the man who discovered plate tectonics wasn't a geologist ,
he was a weather man, and as you would , the "experts " all rubbished him to start with ,
so if you want to take part in this debate ,
you need to start engaging your brain and actually thinking about it,
if I pose a question , I would like some sort of attempt to answer ,
If I as a lay person can pull the bbt to bits with ease,
no wonder the likes of EJ Lerner think it is a joke ,
you lot don't seem to want to accept the flaws or things wrong with it,
and I am not alone in the thinking that the bbt is impossible ,,!!!

[Godfree]

Godfree, you are indeed free to go on believing that the big bang never happened. The universe is what it is regardless of our beliefs, and I can see no harm in it, though it's obvious that you haven't understood the subject matter and most of your arguments make little sense.

If you truly are interested in cosmology, I still recommend that you read a few books on the subject.

I am reading a book on it , it's called ,The big bang never happened ,
and I think it's a good book , and it makes sense to me ,
I have Carl Sagans Cosmos series , on tape and have watched it many times ,
I get the feeling it is you lot that lack the understanding ,
otherwise you could answer some of these questions,

[1] how did the universe get to it's current size without breaking the csl,???

[2]how is it we have large old galaxies ,13 billion years ago ,??

[3]why does the universe look like steady state , not like a bb model should,?

when you answer some of these questions with a rational logical answer,
then I might be convinced to change my view ,
so you lot are my peers , your review seems somewhat lacking in,
engaging any of the things I mention,,,????

[Godfree]

Godfree, you are indeed free to go on believing that the big bang never happened. The universe is what it is regardless of our beliefs, and I can see no harm in it, though it's obvious that you haven't understood the subject matter and most of your arguments make little sense.

If you truly are interested in cosmology, I still recommend that you read a few books on the subject.

I have to agree.

You might like to start with Arthur Koerstler's The Sleepwalkers.

You might take heart from the fact that every single cosmology that has ever been devised since the dawn of time, except the latest one has proved to be faulty, lacking, and in need of replacement.
All have endeavoured to explain the evidence or as the phrase goes to "save the appearances."
To your dismay, though, you will also find that the simplest of these systems, is still beyond your mathematical capacity to understand, as thinkers with greater skill in maths than you or I have devoted their lives to the completion of these systems.
It may well turn out to be the case that the BBT will at some point, no longer prove adequate. But it will not be from the likes of you or I that a new and better fit will replace it.
If you have any humility, you will come away with the certain knowledge that you are not qualified to judge which cosmology is the best fit, let alone which is the right one.

Well Chaz , unlike you I did go and look at the reference you made,
I checked out the book by Koerstler ,
I have seen many docos on the same idea , one of the most enlightening ,
was the history of god , how the concept has evolved over time ,
and yes my maths is pretty basic , but it seems above and beyond you lot,
cos you havn't challenged any of my maths ,
the cosmic speed limit , 700 million years to travel 26 billion light years , my maths says many times the speed of light ,
giving 200 million years for forming galaxies ,
I give just .5 billion years , 500 million years to move across the universe,
or half way at least ,
52 times the speed of light , do you want to challenge the maths Chaz,,??
feel free , give it a go , rip me apart with you wiz dumb,,,!!!

[John]

You are frustratingly deluded. Any serious astrophysicist would laugh you out of the room because you just don't get some of the basic premises and keep asking questions based on conclusions you've reached from your misunderstandings.

As I've already said it's irrelevant whether anyone here can refute what you say, so you're wasting your time posing the questions, as it's only relevant that virtually every specialist would refute your argument. It amazes me that you actually think that if you asked your questions of any of the recognised experts in the field that they would be stumped and unable to answer you.

I suggest you take your theories to a serious physics, astrophysics or cosmology forum that has qualified contributors and try to make your point there.

[John]

feel free , give it a go , rip me apart with you wiz dumb,,,!!!

If you want to why don't let us all know why this is wrong: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

I've quoted the introduction below to give you the general idea of what the paper addresses. My emphasis added.

The general relativistic (GR) interpretation of the redshifts of distant galaxies, as
the expansion of the universe, is widely accepted. However this interpretation leads
to several concepts that are widely misunderstood. Since the expansion of the universe
is the basis of the big bang model, these misunderstandings are fundamental.
Popular science books written by astrophysicists, astrophysics textbooks and to some
extent professional astronomical literature addressing the expansion of the Universe,
contain misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements concerning recession velocities,
horizons and the “observable universe”. Probably the most common misconceptions
surround the expansion of the Universe at distances beyond which Hubble’s law
(vrec = HD: recession velocity = Hubble’s constant × distance) predicts recession velocities
faster than the speed of light [Appendix B: 1–8], despite efforts to clarify the
issue (Murdoch 1977, Harrison 1981, Silverman 1986, Stuckey 1992, Ellis & Rothman
1993, Harrison 1993, Kiang 1997, Davis & Lineweaver 2000, Kiang 2001, Gudmundsson
and Bj¨ornsson 2002). Misconceptions include misleading comments about the observability
of objects receding faster than light [App. B: 9–13]. Related, but more subtle
confusions can be found surrounding cosmological event horizons [App. B: 14–15]. The
concept of the expansion of the universe is so fundamental to our understanding of
cosmology and the misconceptions so abundant that it is important to clarify these
issues and make the connection with observational tests as explicit as possible. In
Section 2 we review and illustrate the standard general relativistic description of the
expanding universe using spacetime diagrams and we provide a mathematical summary
in Appendix A. On the basis of this description, in Section 3 we point out and clarify
common misconceptions about superluminal recession velocities and horizons. Examples
of misconceptions, or easily misinterpreted statements, occurring in the literature
are given in Appendix B. Finally, in Section 4 we provide explicit observational tests
demonstrating that attempts to apply special relativistic concepts to the Universe are
in conflict with observations.

When you can tell us where this paper goes wrong someone mind think your ideas are worth listening to.

[chaz wyman]

Godfree, you are indeed free to go on believing that the big bang never happened. The universe is what it is regardless of our beliefs, and I can see no harm in it, though it's obvious that you haven't understood the subject matter and most of your arguments make little sense.

If you truly are interested in cosmology, I still recommend that you read a few books on the subject.

I have to agree.

You might like to start with Arthur Koerstler's The Sleepwalkers.

You might take heart from the fact that every single cosmology that has ever been devised since the dawn of time, except the latest one has proved to be faulty, lacking, and in need of replacement.
All have endeavoured to explain the evidence or as the phrase goes to "save the appearances."
To your dismay, though, you will also find that the simplest of these systems, is still beyond your mathematical capacity to understand, as thinkers with greater skill in maths than you or I have devoted their lives to the completion of these systems.
It may well turn out to be the case that the BBT will at some point, no longer prove adequate. But it will not be from the likes of you or I that a new and better fit will replace it.
If you have any humility, you will come away with the certain knowledge that you are not qualified to judge which cosmology is the best fit, let alone which is the right one.

Well Chaz , unlike you I did go and look at the reference you made,
I checked out the book by Koerstler ,
I have seen many docos on the same idea , one of the most enlightening ,
was the history of god , how the concept has evolved over time ,
and yes my maths is pretty basic , but it seems above and beyond you lot,
cos you havn't challenged any of my maths ,
the cosmic speed limit , 700 million years to travel 26 billion light years , my maths says many times the speed of light ,
giving 200 million years for forming galaxies ,
I give just .5 billion years , 500 million years to move across the universe,
or half way at least ,
52 times the speed of light , do you want to challenge the maths Chaz,,??
feel free , give it a go , rip me apart with you wiz dumb,,,!!!

I have the book. I've read it from cover to cover.
Do you think I am as stupid as you think I am. Maybe you think I will go away and question the fact that I have read the book just because you told me I have not checked it out.

You are such an idiot.

Your maths are not worthy of consideration.

[Godfree]

You are frustratingly deluded. Any serious astrophysicist would laugh you out of the room because you just don't get some of the basic premises and keep asking questions based on conclusions you've reached from your misunderstandings.

As I've already said it's irrelevant whether anyone here can refute what you say, so you're wasting your time posing the questions, as it's only relevant that virtually every specialist would refute your argument. It amazes me that you actually think that if you asked your questions of any of the recognised experts in the field that they would be stumped and unable to answer you.

I suggest you take your theories to a serious physics, astrophysics or cosmology forum that has qualified contributors and try to make your point there.

You keep assuming I havn't heard all this already ,,,
if I was to sum up main stream sciences way around the problems ,
such as the expansion model ,
they call the moment of rapid expansion as existing before the universe and physics as we know it today existed ,
therefore don't apply ,??? or as Chaz would put it ,,fudge,
I will check out the web site below ,
see what they will do , I'm guessing , is describe the same event ,
the expansion of the universe , in different terms ,
but the reality is , if you go from point a to point b in c amount of time ,
then we can calculate your speed ,
the point of singularity , to the universe as we know it today ,
according to the bbt , in less than one billion years ,
does that sound right to you , would that be enough time you think,
I know you won't answer that so I might as well just make another point ,
if the red shift is caused by movement then , those galaxies ,
very red must be going close to the speed of light away from us ,
and the rate of expansion is accelerating,,?? according to the bbt,
so it would be just a matter of time , or should that be matter and time,,??
until the galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light ,
do you agree with that assessment , if not why not ,??

[John]

If you're up to the job then read the paper I linked to and tell us why it's wrong. If you can't do that then you have nothing to say.

Don't argue you're case with me, argue it with the experts you disagree with.

[Godfree]

feel free , give it a go , rip me apart with you wiz dumb,,,!!!

If you want to why don't let us all know why this is wrong: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

I've quoted the introduction below to give you the general idea of what the paper addresses. My emphasis added.

The general relativistic (GR) interpretation of the redshifts of distant galaxies, as
the expansion of the universe, is widely accepted. However this interpretation leads
to several concepts that are widely misunderstood. Since the expansion of the universe
is the basis of the big bang model, these misunderstandings are fundamental.
Popular science books written by astrophysicists, astrophysics textbooks and to some
extent professional astronomical literature addressing the expansion of the Universe,
contain misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements concerning recession velocities,
horizons and the “observable universe”. Probably the most common misconceptions
surround the expansion of the Universe at distances beyond which Hubble’s law
(vrec = HD: recession velocity = Hubble’s constant × distance) predicts recession velocities
faster than the speed of light [Appendix B: 1–8], despite efforts to clarify the
issue (Murdoch 1977, Harrison 1981, Silverman 1986, Stuckey 1992, Ellis & Rothman
1993, Harrison 1993, Kiang 1997, Davis & Lineweaver 2000, Kiang 2001, Gudmundsson
and Bj¨ornsson 2002). Misconceptions include misleading comments about the observability
of objects receding faster than light [App. B: 9–13]. Related, but more subtle
confusions can be found surrounding cosmological event horizons [App. B: 14–15]. The
concept of the expansion of the universe is so fundamental to our understanding of
cosmology and the misconceptions so abundant that it is important to clarify these
issues and make the connection with observational tests as explicit as possible. In
Section 2 we review and illustrate the standard general relativistic description of the
expanding universe using spacetime diagrams and we provide a mathematical summary
in Appendix A. On the basis of this description, in Section 3 we point out and clarify
common misconceptions about superluminal recession velocities and horizons. Examples
of misconceptions, or easily misinterpreted statements, occurring in the literature
are given in Appendix B. Finally, in Section 4 we provide explicit observational tests
demonstrating that attempts to apply special relativistic concepts to the Universe are
in conflict with observations.

When you can tell us where this paper goes wrong someone mind think your ideas are worth listening to.

I went to the web site , couldn't find the link to the article in question ,
ended up at one of the wiki links it offered ,
there it described the expansion of the universe like a loaf of bread raising , and as the loaf got bigger the currents would move farther apart ,
WRONG , check it out yourself ,
the pattern of galaxies is not moving farther and farther apart ,
the pattern is consistent throughout the universe ,
there is no wider and wider apart ,same density ,
right across the universe , galaxies clumping together ,
that is from the Hubble deep field images ,,
heres what you need to do ,
stop finding sites that agree with your preferred option ,
and google , what is wrong with the bbt,
the oldest galaxies ,
the biggest black hole ,
the pattern of galaxies.
if you want to find real science that doesn't support the bbt,
theres plenty of it out there ,

[Godfree]

If you're up to the job then read the paper I linked to and tell us why it's wrong. If you can't do that then you have nothing to say.

Don't argue you're case with me, argue it with the experts you disagree with.

I am using the experts and there claims to contradict themselves ,
my info on the pattern of galaxies is the latest from the most recent Hubble deep field images .I'm not making this up I have been to these sites ,
and slowly accumulated all this info using accepted science ,
if there is a battle it is between the existing theories ,
I don't need to ad mine to demonstrate contradiction and confusion ,
example , the Hubble deep field report said something like ,
"The age and size of our most distant galaxies is not consistent with the bbt"
in other words it is proof the bbt is wrong,,,!!!