The dynamical physical laws solve the problem of redshift

[Flannel Jesus]

Ok, can someone please explain to me how one can use some measurement to distinguish between less and more “expanded” physical (real) space?

There's some interesting explanations here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/com ... ed_by_the/

There should be a simple answer. If the quality of physical space (reality) changes, some of its measurable properties (c, e, elementary spin...) should also change.

You don't think the wavelength of light is a measurable property?

[Cerveny]

…
There should be a simple answer. If the quality of physical space (reality) changes, some of its measurable properties (c, e, elementary spin...) should also change.

You don't think the wavelength of light is a measurable property?

If we compare the wavelength of the same light from two sources, I think it depends on the difference in their relative speeds with respect to the observer. Or on the speed of light in the respective medium (density of the aether)?

[Noax]

The redshift just shows expansion.

The expansion of what?

Matter away from itself, obviously.

What else could it possibly be?

OK, that's one way of looking at it. Let's consider a real case of GN-Z11, a galaxy that used to hold the distance record.
Redshift is part of its name: z=11

How far away are we from it?
How fast are we moving away from it?

[Age]

The expansion of what?

Matter away from itself, obviously.

What else could it possibly be?

OK, that's one way of looking at it. Let's consider a real case of GN-Z11, a galaxy that used to hold the distance record.

Used to hold the 'distance record' in relation to 'what', exactly?

"john smiith" also used to the hold the 'distance record', as well. But, if I never tell you, or you never ask, in relation to 'what', exactly, then you will, also, never know.

By the way, why did you say, 'real case', here?

When you said and claimed that what I said and claimed is cone way of looking at it's.

What is 'it', exactly?

How many 'ways' are there to look at 'it'?

What are 'those ways'?

And, what is the actual difference between 'the way' that I looked at 'it' and let's 'us' say, 'your way' and 'the way' that you look at 'it'?

Redshift is part of its name: z=11

Okay, if you say so.

How far away are we from it?
How fast are we moving away from it?

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

Let 'us' not forget that 'you', adult human beings, have a tendency to 'look at' and 'see' things from a very narrowed, closed, selective, and/or relative position and/or perspective, ONLY.

Remember you beings, in the days when this was being written were not really know for your OPENNESS and ABILITY to see things for what they REALLY ARE.

Also, it appears you have, once again, completely and utterly forgotten to mention at 'when' are you asking your two questions 'from', exactly?

Please NEVER forget that what you see 'now' is NEVER 'what, still, is', and that what you see, or observe, 'now' is NEVER in the exact same way, shape, nor form.

By the way, do you KNOW WHY what 'used to hold the record distance' is always CHANGING?

Also, what do you think or believe the assumed distance of how far away you human beings are away from that one insignificant galaxy is at some particular moment, and, of some guessed speed of how fast you human beings at some particular 'time' are, apparently, moving away from it has to do with what I POINTED OUT and SAID above here, exactly?

The word 'expansion' in relation to the Universe applies to matter moving away from itself, ONLY.

Either this is True, or it is NOT.

If it is NOT True, then WHY NOT?

But, if you think or believe that you just re-repeating some thing that you have heard or read here, in relation to how far and at what speed some galaxy is, supposedly, to you human beings and moving away from you human beings, at some particular moment, will help you explain some thing here, then carry on. But, just to be absolutely clear, the Universe, Itself, is not and could not ever expand

[Age]

not just the expansion, specifically *accelerating expansion*. Redshift is there even if expansion isn't accelerating. Redshift really is only very loosely indirectly relaed to dark energy. Redshift is explained by expansion. Dark energy supposedly explains accelerated expansion. But dark energy doesn't explain redshift.

If dark energy explains the universe's expansion, then it explains the redshift.

Dark Energy doesn't explain expansion, it explains *accelerating* expansion. I don't think you really care about this topic enough to take it seriously though.

Saying or claiming, 'Dark energy explains expansion', is like saying or claiming, 'God explains creation'.

Until who and/or what 'Dark energy' and 'God' is defined, then, really, NOTHING is actually being explained here, at all.

Now, if absolutely any one would like 'expansion', and/or even 'creation', explained, FULLY, Accurately, and Correctly, to them, then let 'us' just have a civil discussion, here.

[Age]

Dark Energy doesn't explain expansion, it explains *accelerating* expansion. I don't think you really care about this topic enough to take it seriously though.

Ok, accelerating expansion. That I am aware of.

Ok, can someone please explain to me how one can use some measurement to distinguish between less and more expanded physical (real) space?

Firstly, 'we' would need to know what you actually mean by, 'physical (real) space', exactly, before 'we' could answer your question here Accurately and Correctly, for you.

But, usually the 'measurement' used to measure any and all thing/s are just some agreed upon and accepted 'measurement'. Like, for example, feet or hands, or, inches or centimetres.

Also, are you aware that when measurements are made in relation to the distance from, say, a galaxy to earth, or measurements being made outside of earth, then those measurements are always, well as far as I am aware of, in relation to at least two physical objects?

I am not aware of any measurement that has been claimed in relation to one particular invisible point to another invisible point or to a visible object.

But I may well be SHOWN otherwise, here

[Age]

Ok, can someone please explain to me how one can use some measurement to distinguish between less and more “expanded” physical (real) space?

There's some interesting explanations here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/com ... ed_by_the/

There should be a simple answer. If the quality of physical space (reality) changes, some of its measurable properties (c, e, elementary spin...) should also change.

What is the actual 'quality', firstly, of some thing that you call 'physical space (reality), which you are saying here 'could change'?

[Noax]

Used to hold the 'distance record' in relation to 'what', exactly?

Object with the highest measured redshift. The CMB has a higher redshift, but it everywhere and is not an object, so it has no meaningful location to compare to the location where the measurement was taken.

How far away are we from it?
How fast are we moving away from it?

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

Wow, even bahman could answer that one.
Let's say the Hubble telescope. How far away is Hubble from GN-z11 when the measurement is taken? How fast is it moving away from GN-z11 at any time during its fleeting functional existence?

If any specification of frame or coordinate system is necessary for an answer, feel free to thus qualify your answer, but I cannot select one for you without knowing so little about what you're asserting.

Please NEVER forget that what you see 'now' is NEVER 'what, still, is'

I never said otherwise.

By the way, do you KNOW WHY what 'used to hold the record distance' is always CHANGING?

Yes, I do.

Also, what do you think or believe the assumed distance of how far away you human beings are away from that one insignificant galaxy is at some particular moment

I asked first. What is computed (not assumed) was done by people you dismiss as closed minded, so it doesn't matter, does it?

The word 'expansion' in relation to the Universe applies to matter moving away from itself, ONLY.

My questions did not mention the word 'expansion'. I am asking about your view in which expansion is just motion of objects away from each other.

But, if you think or believe that you just re-repeating some thing that you have heard or read here

I am repeating nothing. I asserted nothing and simply asked two questions that I predict you will decline to answer for lack of any idea about how things ACTUALLY ARE.
OK, that prediction is technically an assertion of sorts, one that will turn out to not contradict the evidence.

I asked because the post in this topic to which I first replied was A) relatively civil compared to 90% of your posts, and B) actually made some positive assertions rather than just a bunch of denials about what others say.

[Age]

Used to hold the 'distance record' in relation to 'what', exactly?

Object with the highest measured redshift. The CMB has a higher redshift, but it everywhere and is not an object, so it has no meaningful location to compare to the location where the measurement was taken.

How far away are we from it?
How fast are we moving away from it?

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

Wow, even bahman could answer that one.

Maybe so, but would "bahman" provide the same answer as you might?

If no, then the importance of getting 'your' clarification, and not "bahman's" here has hopefully now been recognised, and noticed.

Let's say the Hubble telescope.

Okay.

How far away is Hubble from GN-z11 when the measurement is taken? How fast is it moving away from GN-z11 at any time during its fleeting functional existence?

I do not 'currently' know.

Would you like me to look up a provided approximated answer, for you, and then get back to you?

If any specification of frame or coordinate system is necessary for an answer, feel free to thus qualify your answer, but I cannot select one for you without knowing so little about what you're asserting.

If you would like to find out, and thus know, more about absolutely ANY thing that I am asserting, here, then by all means feel free to just ask me some clarifying questions.

By the way do you think or believe that I was asserting some thing in that very simple clarifying question that I asked you, here?

If yes, then WHY is that, exactly?

But, if no, then WHY did you mention that you did you imply that you knew so little about what I was asserting?

What was this even in relation to, exactly?

Please NEVER forget that what you see 'now' is NEVER 'what, still, is'

I never said otherwise.?

Great. So, hopefully you are NEVER forgetting.

By the way, do you KNOW WHY what 'used to hold the record distance' is always CHANGING?

Yes, I do.

Great. And, hopefully, you also know, exactly, WHY, as well.

Also, what do you think or believe the assumed distance of how far away you human beings are away from that one insignificant galaxy is at some particular moment

I asked first.

Very True.

What is computed (not assumed) was done by people you dismiss as closed minded, so it doesn't matter, does it?

So what, supposedly, does not 'now' matter?

I have NEVER said 'closed minded'.

Are you saying that all of the computations made, here, should be classed and/or considered as absolutely and/or irrefutably ACCURATE, and are NOT to be assessed nor seen as ASSUMED distances?

The word 'expansion' in relation to the Universe applies to matter moving away from itself, ONLY.

My questions did not mention the word 'expansion'.

I NEVER thought NOR believed that your questions did mention the 'expansion' word.

I am asking about your view in which expansion is just motion of objects away from each other.

Why do you use the word 'just' here? What else, besides the motion of objects, could the 'expansion' word be of, or in relation to, exactly?

But, if you think or believe that you just re-repeating some thing that you have heard or read here

I am repeating nothing.

Well not yet.

And, you would like me to repeat the 'same answer' that you have heard or read somewhere, correct?

If no, then you might like that I do not yet even know the 'same answer' that you have been made aware of previously, and are now seeking from me, right?

I asserted nothing and simply asked two questions that I predict you will decline to answer for lack of any idea about how things ACTUALLY ARE.

Well this is, obviously, a Truly VERY PRESUMPTIVE view or belief that you have here.

Oh, and by the way, I have, ALREADY, answered your questions above, here. Did you notice, previously?

OK, that prediction is technically an assertion of sorts, one that will turn out to not contradict the evidence.

How did you, supposedly, know this, previously.

Also, could you have been Wrong, once again.

And, did you NOTICE that your prediction/assertion was Wrong, and Incorrect?

I asked because the post in this topic to which I first replied was A) relatively civil compared to 90% of your posts, and B) actually made some positive assertions rather than just a bunch of denials about what others say.

I will say AGAIN,

I WILL clarify, back up, support, and prove not just my assertions, but also my denials of the claims that others made here, as well.

But, AGAIN, this will only happen if and when those who are Truly OPEN and CURIOS ask the ACTUAL questions that they ACTUALLY want clarified, backed up, supported, and/or proved, from and by me.

ONCE MORE I am in NO rush, here, and I KNOW what I have to share is IRREFUTABLE, anyway. Showing how CLOSED and NARROWED people Truly were, back in the 'olden days', when this was being written, is also a part of what I have to REVEAL, and which, with help, I am REVEALING, here.

So, either me providing the proof, first, or me just waiting for the Right people to come along, here, both work out GREAT, and PERFECT, for me.

I KNOW if some one made an assertion, positive, or not, or denied what another asserted, then I would certainly ask that one for clarification and/or proof for their assertion' and ask WHY they denied the assertion of another. But, then again, I, OBVIOUSLY, would only do this if I was, still, OPEN and/or, still, had some CURIOSITY, and INTEREST, left.

[Noax]

I have NEVER said 'closed minded'.

I didn't express it as a direct quote. The direct quote typically repeated is worse:

this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

How far away is Hubble from GN-z11 when the measurement is taken? How fast is it moving away from GN-z11 at any time during its fleeting functional existence?

I do not 'currently' know.

Would you like me to look up a provided approximated answer, for you, and then get back to you?

There is no provided answer, which is why I asked. The only answers on the web come from those you label as

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

and would contradict the assertions you made to which I initially responded. Hence your answer is provided by you or nobody. If you can't work it out, then you don't actually know anything compared to the humans you label as

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

, do you?

how far away you human beings ...

That wording suggests that you don't consider human being to be part of your peer group. With which species do you more closely identify then. I'll keep my personal guesses to myself.

If you would like to find out, and thus know, more about absolutely ANY thing that I am asserting, here, then by all means feel free to just ask me some clarifying questions.

You seem to understand the question, and replied that you simply don't know. Clarification questions are not going to help you know what ACTUALLY IS if you, the sole knower of it, doesn't actually know.

By the way do you think or believe that I was asserting some thing in that very simple clarifying question that I asked you, here?

What question are you referring to here? The most recent question asked if I'd like you to get back on some answer you'd look up. It didn't seem to make many assertions except an implied one that the answer consistent with your view can be looked up somewhere.

But, if no, then WHY did you mention that you did you imply that you knew so little about what I was asserting?

A complete lack of informative answers to any question probably has a lot to do with it.

Are you saying that all of the computations made, here, should be classed and/or considered as absolutely and/or irrefutably ACCURATE, and are NOT to be assessed nor seen as ASSUMED distances?

I didn't say any of that. I don't recall making any computations or assertions about physics at all in this topic.

I am asking about your view in which expansion is just motion of objects away from each other.

Why do you use the word 'just' here? What else, besides the motion of objects, could the 'expansion' word be of, or in relation to, exactly?

In this context, 'just' is a synonym for 'only', and it was a reference to comments like this one that deny expansion of space:

The word 'expansion' in relation to the Universe applies to matter moving away from itself, ONLY.

You even put it in caps.

But you have no model to justify this assertion, as evidenced by your inability to compute a distance to a galaxy based only on its measured redshift, when the BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID are very capable of it.

And, you would like me to repeat the 'same answer' that you have heard or read somewhere, correct?

If the answer has never been given, it cannot be repeated, by definition. I'm not asking you how others would answer those questions. I'm asking what the correct answers are. I don't know. I'm

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

remember?

Show that you're not even lower than that assessment and give a better answer. "I don't know' doesn't demonstrate that at all.

this will only happen if and when those who are Truly OPEN and CURIOS ask the ACTUAL questions

Not going to happen. You will always consider everybody else to be

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

. Your choice to do so, not ours. So you admit to having no answers ever, and no need of them due to hiding behind that assessment.

[Age]

I have NEVER said 'closed minded'.

I didn't express it as a direct quote.

And, I NEVER said that you expressed it as a direct quote.

The direct quote typically repeated is worse:

this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

The direct quote is supposedly 'worse' in relation to 'what', exactly?

I do not 'currently' know.

Would you like me to look up a provided approximated answer, for you, and then get back to you?

There is no provided answer, which is why I asked. The only answers on the web come from those you label as

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

and would contradict the assertions you made to which I initially responded.

If there are, supposedly, NO 'provided answer', then how could there be ANY answers, on the web, as you claim there are?

Hence your answer is provided by you or nobody.

So, 'now', the 'only answers', on the web, do not answer the two questions you asked me, here, correct?

If you can't work it out, then you don't actually know anything compared to the humans you label as

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

, do you?

But I could work it out.

And, even if I cannot work out the how far away 'hubble' is, when a measurement is taken, and/or cannot work out how fast 'hubble' is moving away from said galaxy, at any time during its fleeting functional existence, then this does not necessarily mean that I actually do not know anything, compared to the humans that I label as BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID, AT ALL.

And, how do the two things here even relate, exactly?

you people can be BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID and still know more things about things than another does.

how far away you human beings ...

That wording suggests that you don't consider human being to be part of your peer group.

Okay, if you say so.

With which species do you more closely identify then.

WHY do you NOT just focus on one thing, or a few things only, and get the answers for them BEFORE you JUMP to things that are really of NO significance at all, here?

Now, because there is just motion of objects away from each other, or expansion of the distance between matter, itself, then how, exactly, does this relate to any claim about the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

I'll keep my personal guesses to myself.

Great. you seem to be 'catching on', here.

Also, and just out of curiosity, did/do you see and/or take 'the label' I provided as some sort of insult?

If yes, then WHY, exactly?

If you would like to find out, and thus know, more about absolutely ANY thing that I am asserting, here, then by all means feel free to just ask me some clarifying questions.

You seem to understand the question, and replied that you simply don't know.

As I have not yet looked up 'the answers', I 'currently' do not yet know.

If 'the answers' are of any real importance here, then would you like me to look them up, for you, and to provide them, to you, here?

Do you know the answers to your two questions above, here?

Clarification questions are not going to help you know what ACTUALLY IS if you, the sole knower of it, doesn't actually know.

I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what you are referring to here, exactly.

I do NOT 'currently' want to know what 'the answers' are to your two clarifying questions above, here. As they are of absolutely NO significance at all to what I have been POINTING OUT and SAYING, here.

If you think or believe me informing you of what the answers are to those two clarifying questions will help you, or will help any thing, here, then HOW would that be, exactly?

By the way do you think or believe that I was asserting some thing in that very simple clarifying question that I asked you, here?

What question are you referring to here?

Who does the 'we' word here refer to, exactly?

The most recent question asked if I'd like you to get back on some answer you'd look up.

Okay, but it was NOT the 'most 'recent' question'.

It didn't seem to make many assertions except an implied one that the answer consistent with your view can be looked up somewhere.

Moot, as you have LOST and/or MISSED 'the question'.

But, if no, then WHY did you mention that you did you imply that you knew so little about what I was asserting?

A complete lack of informative answers to any question probably has a lot to do with it.

Well, considering that it is 'you' who 'I' am waiting for 'you' to answer 'my question', then okay.

Are you saying that all of the computations made, here, should be classed and/or considered as absolutely and/or irrefutably ACCURATE, and are NOT to be assessed nor seen as ASSUMED distances?

I didn't say any of that.

I NEVER said you did.

I was just asking you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY.

I don't recall making any computations or assertions about physics at all in this topic.

Okay.

Why do you use the word 'just' here? What else, besides the motion of objects, could the 'expansion' word be of, or in relation to, exactly?

In this context, 'just' is a synonym for 'only', and it was a reference to comments like this one that deny expansion of space:

The word 'expansion' in relation to the Universe applies to matter moving away from itself, ONLY.

You even put it in caps.

YES I DID.

Now,

1. I have NEVER denied 'expansion of space'.

2. I have just ASKED you that if you think or believe that there is something else that the 'expansion' word is in relation to other than the motion of matter, then what is 'that', exactly?

Again, I await 'your answer/s'.

But you have no model to justify this assertion,

And, you nor ANY one else has even asked me to provide ANY 'model'.

Also, I do NOT even have to have A model to justify this assertion. I can just JUSTIFY and PROVE 'that assertion' IRREFUTABLY, anyway.

as evidenced by your inability to compute a distance to a galaxy based only on its measured redshift, when the BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID are very capable of it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

HOW, exactly, does me, supposedly, NOT ABLE TO just 'compute a distance to a galaxy', RELATE TO me not having 'some model'.

Even if I could NOT 'compute a distance to a galaxy' NEVER necessarily means that I do NOT have 'a model'.

And, AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING and COMPREHENDING, I do NOT DO 'model', 'guesses', 'assumptions', NOR 'theories'. As, ONCE MORE, to me, they are just a WASTE OF TIME and ENERGY. And, considering that the ACTUAL Truth is BEFORE 'us' ALL, HERE, 'I' MUCH PREFER to just 'LOOK AT' 'That', INSTEAD, and ONLY.

And, you would like me to repeat the 'same answer' that you have heard or read somewhere, correct?

If the answer has never been given, it cannot be repeated, by definition.

So, do you or someone else ALREADY HAVE 'the answers', or not?

I'm not asking you how others would answer those questions. I'm asking what the correct answers are. I don't know. I'm

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

remember?

What are you even on about, here, exactly?

Show that you're not even lower than that assessment and give a better answer. "I don't know' doesn't demonstrate that at all.

What do you MEAN?

If I do not YET know an answer, then I just do not YET know an answer.

Is there ANY thing Wrong with this?

this will only happen if and when those who are Truly OPEN and CURIOS ask the ACTUAL questions

Not going to happen.

Okay. Is this BECAUSE you are NOT open NOR curios?

You will always consider everybody else to be

BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID

.

LOL It is BECAUSE of being SO BLIND, SO CLOSED, and SO STUPID these kinds of ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS are made PUBLIC.

Your choice to do so, not ours. So you admit to having no answers ever, and no need of them due to hiding behind that assessment.

REALLY, what are you ON ABOUT, here, EXACTLY?

LOOK, the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding. OBVIOUSLY, there is EXPANSION between matter.

Now, if there is ANY thing else that is, supposedly, EXPANDING, then JUST SAY SO, and then PRESENT 'your reasons' WHY you say and claim this?

Also, WHAT, exactly, does 'the distance' of some galaxy from 'hubble' and the rate of the 'increased distance' have to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that I have SAID and WRITTEN, here?

[Noax]

If there are, supposedly, NO 'provided answer', then how could there be ANY answers, on the web, as you claim there are?

Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.
I said I want your answer, and your answer is nowhere on the web. The web contains only answers which contradict your assertions.

But I could work it out.

You have demonstrated otherwise. All the trolls make that empty assertion. "I could do it, but I won't"

And, even if I cannot work out the how far away 'hubble' is, when a measurement is taken, and/or cannot work out how fast 'hubble' is moving away from said galaxy, at any time during its fleeting functional existence, then this does not necessarily mean that I actually do not know anything, compared to the humans that I label as BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID, AT ALL.

I didn't say you actually do not know anything, I just am demonstrating that you know less than those you label as STUPID.

Do you know the answers to your two questions above, here?

Yes I do. You said "I don't know". That was your answer to the questions, and it was your answer to the questions was what I wanted. That answer told me what I needed to know. Are we done then?

1. I have NEVER denied 'expansion of space'.

Did so:

But the Universe, Itself, is not expanding.

"Expansion of the universe" refers to expansion of space over time. The terms mean the same thing in that context.
What it doesn't mean is that the entirety of space has a size, and that size is a different larger number at a later time. But it does mean that a given volume of space grows over time.

Instead you asserted that expansion was no more than matter moving away from itself:

The redshift just shows expansion.

The expansion of what?

Matter away from itself, obviously.

What else could it possibly be?

Here you assert that expansion could be nothing other than matter away from itself, and apparently not the expansion of space/universe itself.

Also, I do NOT even have to have A model to justify this assertion. I can just JUSTIFY and PROVE 'that assertion' IRREFUTABLY, anyway.

Claiming to be able to do so is easy.' Actually doing so has not been done.

You seem to claim that knowledge of physics is a waste of time and energy, which it very much is for plenty of people with different interests. But most of those people don't post in topics like this claiming to know better than those with such knowledge, highlighting the parts that cannot be backed by putting them in all caps. We have a word for those that do anyway.

[Age]

If there are, supposedly, NO 'provided answer', then how could there be ANY answers, on the web, as you claim there are?

Reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.
I said I want your answer, and your answer is nowhere on the web. The web contains only answers which contradict your assertions.

1. Let 'us' not forget that you have not comprehended and have misunderstood what I have written, AS WELL.

2. I apologize for not comprehending absolutely every thing you have written.

3. WHY do you believe, absolutely, that the web contains, only, answers which, supposedly, contradict my assertions?

4. How do you KNOW that 'my answer' is, supposedly, NOWHERE on the web?

5. What even is 'my answer', exactly, which you believe, absolutely, is absolutely NOWHERE on the web?

6. And, HOW does this relate, exactly, to you wanting me to inform you of what my answer is to two clarifying questions that you have asked me?

But I could work it out.

You have demonstrated otherwise. All the trolls make that empty assertion. "I could do it, but I won't"

Are you some kind of IMBECILE? All I would have to do is just type into a search bar the two questions you asked, and then if there is an actual answer already on the web, then I could just inform you of that answer/s. However, to me, those two questions of yours have absolutely ANY thing at all to do with what I have said, and asserted. So, there is absolutely NO use in me just 'looking up' what the answers are to those two questions of yours.

Now, if you think or believe that me answering those two questions of yours will somehow counter or refute my assertion, then I think you really are on the Wrong track, here. However, you may well have some reasonable reason for asking me those two questions, and so I wait to find out and see if you have.

Will you provide the answers to those two questions of yours, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And, by the way, what do those two questions have to do with what I have already said and written, here?

And, even if I cannot work out the how far away 'hubble' is, when a measurement is taken, and/or cannot work out how fast 'hubble' is moving away from said galaxy, at any time during its fleeting functional existence, then this does not necessarily mean that I actually do not know anything, compared to the humans that I label as BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID, AT ALL.

I didn't say you actually do not know anything,

I NEVER said that you said that I actually do not know anything.

I just POINTED OUT how the two things that you 'tried to' make out correlated DO NOT.

I just am demonstrating that you know less than those you label as STUPID.

What a Truly STUPID, CLOSED, and BLIND thing to say and claim, here.

So, just because I do NOT YET KNOW some thing, which I could have ALREADY just 'looked up' on the internet, then this means, to this one anyway, that I know less than some human beings do.

Talk about ABSURDITY in the extreme.

Do you know the answers to your two questions above, here?

Yes I do. You said "I don't know".

LOL
LOL
LOL

I NEVER EVER said that you do not know. I said, 'I do not know'.

Talk about a PRIME example of reading comprehension obviously not being one's forte.

I suggest you go back over what i have ACTUALLY said and written, here.

That was your answer to the questions, and it was your answer to the questions was what I wanted. That answer told me what I needed to know. Are we done then?

I SAID, 'I do not know', to 'your two clarifying questions'. I 'thought' this was done after I wrote those four words down and you had read them.

Now, if the purpose of you asking me those two questions was that you could prove to the readers here that, 'I do not know', the answers to those two very little and Truly insignificant clarifying questions just so you could say, 'See you know less the people who know those answers', then you REALLY ARE far more immature than I first thought.

Let 'us' NOT forget that I or ANY one only has to 'look up', in some literature, to find out what the provided 'assumed to be' correct measurements are of your two questions above here.

Also, I am, still, wondering if you have YET realized that the answers to those two questions in absolutely NO way AT ALL could contradict my assertions anyway.

Furthermore, contrary to your BELIEF the web does NOT contain, only, answers, which contradict my assertions.

In fact, as it will be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True the web actually contains answers that PROVE, JUSTIFY, and VERIFY my assertions as being the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge.

1. I have NEVER denied 'expansion of space'.

Did so:

But the Universe, Itself, is not expanding.

"Expansion of the universe" refers to expansion of space over time. The terms mean the same thing in that context.
What it doesn't mean is that the entirety of space has a size, and that size is a different larger number at a later time. But it does mean that a given volume of space grows over time.

So what what 'that' means?

Again, you have FAILED to comprehend and understand what I have ACTUALLY said, written, and MEANT.

And, ONCE MORE, if and when you STOP assuming and believing things, then you WILL START being OPEN, CURIOS, and ASKING CLARIFYING questions. And, NOT asking clarifying questions to 'try to' SHOW that others know MORE than me, but instead to FIND OUT what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

Instead you asserted that expansion was no more than matter moving away from itself:

ONCE AGAIN, I NEVER made ANY mention of 'no man than ...'.

But, if I did, then I stand Corrected, and WAIT for you to SHOW and PROVE, exactly, WHERE I DID.

Also, and for the those here, who want to FIND OUT what 'matter moving away from itself' ACTUALLY MEANS and ACTUALLY INVOLVES for it to happen and occur, while also being CURIOS as to HOW, EXACTLY, I use the 'space' word, then by all means let 'us', please, have A DISCUSSION.

The expansion of what?

Matter away from itself, obviously.

What else could it possibly be?

Here you assert that expansion could be nothing other than matter away from itself, and apparently not the expansion of space/universe itself.

I NEVER EVER asserted ANY such thing. I REALLY DO SUGGEST that you just STOP ASSUMING things.

See, when 'I', unlike 'you' adult human beings, ask a CLARIFYING QUESTION I am NOT 'asserting' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. As can be CLEARLY SEEN with the example question above here, I am JUST ASKING you, for CLARIFICATION, 'What else could it possibly be'? And, absolutely NOTHING ELSE is being meant, implied, NOR asserted.

ONCE MORE, i will suggest to you human beings, here, do NOT ASSUME NOR BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing when and while reading 'MY WORDS', in this forum.

Also, if and when absolutely ANY one WANTS TO FIND OUT HOW, in 'my view' of things here 'space', itself, IS EXPANDING, then by all means let 'us' just have A DISCUSSION. So, that 'you' CAN and WILL FIND OUT what I actually MEAN when I use the 'space', and ANY and EVERY other, word, here.

This one known as "noax" here is continually PROVING HOW, exactly, PRE-ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING things IS, and HAS, led this one completely OFF-TRACK and completely ASTRAY, here.

But, this is NOT some thing that just "noax" is doing and has been doing throughout this forum.

Also, I do NOT even have to have A model to justify this assertion. I can just JUSTIFY and PROVE 'that assertion' IRREFUTABLY, anyway.

Claiming to be able to do so is easy.' Actually doing so has not been done.

1. Claiming to do so, to me, is AS simple AND easy AS doing so.

2. Please do NOT forget that what has not been done to you does NOT mean that it has NOT been done to others.

You seem to claim that knowledge of physics is a waste of time and energy,

'This' may well be what 'seems' to you, but it is CERTAINLY NOT what I have been saying NOR meaning absolutely ANYWHERE.

ONCE AGAIN, I could say and claim that 'reading comprehension' is obviously not of this one's forte. HOWEVER, if and when I do this, then it is 'I' who gets BLAMED for NOT writing correctly, succinctly, accurately, and/nor clearly.

which it very much is for plenty of people with different interests.

I have NEVER thought, let implied, let alone said absolutely ANY thing like, 'knowledge of physics is a waste of time and energy'. So, what you just said here is completely unnecessary.

But most of those people don't post in topics like this claiming to know better than those with such knowledge, highlighting the parts that cannot be backed by putting them in all caps. We have a word for those that do anyway.

1. 'I" am NOT 'most people'.

2. The one who said and claimed that the sun does not revolve around the earth was ALSO claimed to be NOT one of the 'most people' who claimed that they had 'such knowledge'. Obviously, at times throughout human history, 'most people' have had the 'same such knowledge'. And, throughout human history 'most people', with 'such knowledge', have had False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect knowledge, which they ALSO BELIEVED was the true, right, accurate, and/or correct knowledge. But, NEVER EVER do 'most people', NOR 'such knowledge', mean that they are Correct.

3. I can and WILL back up, support, justify, verify, and/or prove what I have said and claimed in capital letters and NOT in capital letters.

4. This one actually BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the words I put in all capital letters CANNOT be 'backed'.

Really, I do NOT KNOW how MANY TIMES that these human beings, here, are going to KEEP PROVING, IRREFUTABLY, for me, that HAVING and HOLDING ONTO BELIEFS is, and was, the BIGGEST DOWNFALL for ALL human beings, humanity, and human kind.

LOOK, the Universe did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. And, this is AS OBVIOUS, to me, as the sun does NOT revolve around the earth was AS OBVIOUS, 'to one human being', BEFORE it BECAME OBVIOUS to more and more human beings.

AND, ONCE MORE, I WILL only SHOW and PROVE this to those who are Truly OPEN and Truly CURIOS. For the rest of 'you', 'you' WILL just HAVE TO WAIT.

[Noax]

However, to me, those two questions of yours have absolutely ANY thing at all to do with what I have said, and asserted.

Yes, I've noticed that.

Will you provide the answers to those two questions of yours, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Your posts lack the civility I'd rather see, and you display a lack of proficiency necessary to do anything with actual number except deny them.

I will clarify since the answer is frame dependent. Since you express expansion as motion through space (actual velocity) and not expansion of space itself, you'll have quite a difficult time finding the answers on the web, and I carefully worded the question in a way that a quick google search is not likely to find an answer.
What I envision is a tape measure with the zero mark ever present at GN-z11 and stretching all the way to us and beyond. They will see us moving at some speed along the tape, and we will see the numbers on the tape grow in magnitude at some different rate. As for the distance, well, what is the number we see on that tape, say at the date that the Hubble took its measurement?

The numbers on the web typically report the (frame invariant) rate at which additional space grows between us and them. This is not a velocity at all since it isn't a vector, and it is pretty meaningless in a context where there is no expansion of space. So 'looking it up in some literature' probably will not answer the motion-in-space wording of the question.

Also, I am, still, wondering if you have YET realized that the answers to those two questions in absolutely NO way AT ALL could contradict my assertions anyway.

If you go by the answers on the web that framed by an expanding space metric, then yes, it will contradict your asserting it could be nothing other than just motion of material. Yes, I know that isn't your exact wording, but I have quoted your exact wording. If your quote means something else, then clarify rather than just ranting about how I'm too stupid to glean what you mean by your words, or rather than claim intention to clarify in some unspecified future when you repeat the ever empty promise to 'have A DISCUSSION'. You made this claim multiple times in this post, but no productive discussion ever results.

1. Claiming to do so, to me, is AS simple AND easy AS doing so.

I'm sure it is, but despite the simplicity, I only see the former being done.

[Age]

However, to me, those two questions of yours have absolutely ANY thing at all to do with what I have said, and asserted.

Yes, I've noticed that.

Will you provide the answers to those two questions of yours, here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Your posts lack the civility I'd rather see, and you display a lack of proficiency necessary to do anything with actual number except deny them.

Talk about DELUSION, from pre-existing BELIEFS, in the extreme.

I will clarify since the answer is frame dependent. Since you express expansion as motion through space (actual velocity) and not expansion of space itself,

ONCE AGAIN, this one, STILL, can NOT get 'it' Right.

ONE DAY it WILL LEARN WHAT TO DO, INSTEAD OF WHAT it KEEPS DOING here, which is WHY it is SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

you'll have quite a difficult time finding the answers on the web, and I carefully worded the question in a way that a quick google search is not likely to find an answer.

Okay.

What I envision is a tape measure with the zero mark ever present at GN-z11 and stretching all the way to us and beyond. They will see us moving at some speed along the tape,

'Who' will, supposedly, see 'us' moving at some speed along the tape? And, who are 'us', exactly?

and we will see the numbers on the tape grow in magnitude at some different rate.

Is this what you KNOW to be an IRREFUTABLE Fact? Or, just what you imagine and/or BELIEVE is true.

By the way, you are NOT answering your OWN questions above here.

As for the distance, well, what is the number we see on that tape, say at the date that the Hubble took its measurement?

The numbers on the web typically report the (frame invariant) rate at which additional space grows between us and them.

So, AGAIN, you want to PERSIST in CLAIMING that 'space', itself, so-called 'grows'.

This is not a velocity at all since it isn't a vector, and it is pretty meaningless in a context where there is no expansion of space.

So, are you suggesting that 'your question/s' were MEANINGLESS?

So 'looking it up in some literature' probably will not answer the motion-in-space wording of the question.

So, do you KNOW 'the answer/s', or NOT?

Also, if there is NOT some literature with 'those answers', then WHY did you ask 'those questions' to hopefully SHOW that 'I" know LESS than some people who supposedly did.

Either 'the answers' ALREADY EXIST, or they DO NOT. And, if they ALREADY EXIST, then what are they, EXACTLY?

Also, I am, still, wondering if you have YET realized that the answers to those two questions in absolutely NO way AT ALL could contradict my assertions anyway.

If you go by the answers on the web that framed by an expanding space metric, then yes, it will contradict your asserting it could be nothing other than just motion of material.

So, to you, BEFORE you even BEGIN to FIND OUT what I ACTUALLY MEAN, you have ALREADY CONCLUDED and ARE BELIEVING that 'answers', which APPEAR to you as contradictory, ARE ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY.

Yes, I know that isn't your exact wording,

So, even though you KNOW you are USING DIFFERENT WORDING, which CHANGES things, you, STILL, GO AHEAD and DO this.

but I have quoted your exact wording.[/quote]

Yes you may well have. But, you also do so WITHOUT EVER even just BEGINNING to SEEK OUT what I AM ACTUALLY MEANING.

If your quote means something else, then clarify rather than just ranting about how I'm too stupid to glean what you mean by your words, or rather than claim intention to clarify in some unspecified future when you repeat the ever empty promise to 'have A DISCUSSION'.

So, I have to, supposedly, WAIT for you to EXPRESS your VERY OWN Wrong INTERPRETATION of MY WORDS, AND THEN INFORM you of what I MEANT, right?

I WILL, AGAIN, SUGGEST that you STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and SEEK OUT ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST. If you DID, then, ONCE MORE, you will NOT be SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

You made this claim multiple times in this post, but no productive discussion ever results.

I, supposedly, made 'what claim', multiple times, EXACTLY?

And, NO discussion EVER RESULTS BECAUSE people like you do NOT ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, in regards to what I ACTUALLY MEAN.

OF COURSE there are people like you that ASK, Truly NONSENSICAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, like you did, which even you ADMITTED 'the answers' can NOT be found, and so do not even exist. But, ASKING questions like 'them' is NOT having an ACTUAL DISCUSSION. Obviously, you just had an ulterior motive, which you were 'trying to' get, but which you OBVIOUSLY NEVER succeeded in.

1. Claiming to do so, to me, is AS simple AND easy AS doing so.

I'm sure it is, but despite the simplicity, I only see the former being done.

Okay. And, a LOT OF PEOPLE like "yourself" ONLY 'see' what they WANT TO SEE. Or, in other words, ONLY 'find' 'confirmation biases' for what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

Now, ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUSLY matter moves apart from itself.
Just AS OBVIOUS is that matter is just a part of the Universe.
The Universe is infinite AND eternal.

The Fact that this can NOT be argued against NOR refuted in absolutely ANY WAY AT ALL, literally, MEANS that this is an ALREADY PROVED Fact.

And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like ANY FURTHER PROOF, then just explain WHY you consider what I have said here is NOT True.