Le mer. 11 sept. 2024, 18:04, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 4:33:51 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2024, 11:49, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 3:26:01 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mer. 11 sept. 2024, 11:23, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 3:50:08 PM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 10 sept. 2024, 23:19, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 2:19:42 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:57 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *>> Even if you ignore Dark Energy and postulate that the Hubble constant > really is constant, every object a megaparsec away (3.26 million > light-years) is moving away from us at about 70 kilometers per second. So > if you try to look at objects a sufficiently large number of megaparsec > away you will fail to find any because they are moving away from us faster > than the speed of light.* > > > >* That was in the past. At present, the universe is expanding at about > 70 km/sec.* > > > *Galaxies are receding from the Earth at 70 km/sec for EACH megaparsec > distant from Earth they are. The further from Earth they are, the faster > they are moving away from us, so if they are far enough away they will be > moving faster than the speed of light away from us. * > > *> You're assuming the universe today is infinite,* > > > *NO! I said IF the entire universe is infinite today then it was always > infinite, and IF it was finite 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang then it's > still finite today. I also said nobody knows if the entire universe is > infinite or finite. * > > > *>* *Hubble's law applies to the past, not to the future,* > > > *What the hell?! * > > > *How about an intelligent reply? Obviously, if the universe is infinite > today, it was always infinite. But that's what I am questioning. For > galaxies to fall out of view, they have to moving at greater than c. Now > they aren't receding that fast. How will they start moving that fast? > You're applying Hubble's law without thinking what it says. Just because a > galaxy is now receding at less than c, how will continued expansion > increase that speed to greater than c? AG * > > > The farther they are the faster they are receding from you, so as they > continue to get farther away they receed faster from you till the point > they receed faster than c and go out of your horizon. > > Quentin > > > Instead of preaching the Gospel, why don't you try to justify Brent's > equation to prove your point, if you can. I see the distance separation > along the equator for two separated galaxies as linear as the radius of the > sphere expands. Brent uses Hubble's law, but the proof of what you claim > shouldn't depend on Hubble, but just the geometry. AG > > > I did multiple times with the balloon analogy which is purely geometrical, > see previous answers. > > > I don't think so. You just asserted it. AG > > > The equation that links distance and recession velocity in both cases > comes from the same geometric principles of uniform expansion in space. The > proportionality between distance and velocity is a natural consequence of > how expansion works, whether it’s on a 2D surface like a balloon or in 3D > space like our universe. > > The expansion of the balloon and the universe follow similar dynamics > because, in both cases, the expansion is homogeneous (the same everywhere) > and isotropic (the same in all directions). > > If you mark two points close to each other on the balloon and start > inflating it, those two points will move apart slowly. However, if you mark > two points farther apart, they will move away from each other much more > quickly as the balloon expands. > > > This is what you keep claiming, but have yet to offer a *mathematical > proof*. Try this; two galaxies on the equator of a sphere, with a > separation distance s, and the equator expanding as a function of its > radius r to simulate expansion. The recessional velocity is ds/dt, which > depends on dr/dt. If dr/dt is constant, so will be ds/dt, and the > recessional velocity is constant and cannot reach c or greater. What is > wrong with this proof, falsifying Hubble's law and your model? AG > Example with points: At t0: . . At t1: . . . At t2: . . . . . At t3: . . . . . . . At each step, more and more "space" is being added uniformly between the two initial points. This represents the expansion of space between two galaxies. Even if each added "piece" of space is infinitesimally small, over time, the total expansion will eventually exceed the speed of light because the space between the points is continuously expanding. The key idea is that even if the space is expanding at a constant rate, the total distance between two points increases over time. The farther apart they are, the faster they recede from each other. Eventually, the distance grows so large that the rate at which they recede exceeds c. > In the same way, in the universe, the farther away a galaxy is, the more > space there is between us and that galaxy. Since each portion of space is > expanding, more distant galaxies experience the cumulative effect of the > expansion over several portions of space. This means that for a galaxy at a > great distance, the total expansion of space is larger, which results in a > higher recession velocity. > > * John* K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > hwt > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5485c7a2-a527-448a-b337-3c8c60466d73n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5485c7a2-a527-448a-b337-3c8c60466d73n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6b38b12-78d8-4245-a011-1f5fd04cf8b0n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6b38b12-78d8-4245-a011-1f5fd04cf8b0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0006226-f930-437b-8df8-c258118625d3n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0006226-f930-437b-8df8-c258118625d3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d056136a-41f7-41c6-9c79-18d648ecfd4an%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d056136a-41f7-41c6-9c79-18d648ecfd4an%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAr2UVT2fdrKZhcfYojSCgq5BtiRLnhskG6xpuuK_w46uw%40mail.gmail.com.
