Spyman

Does this mean that particles crashing against our atmosphere actually creates black holes ?Is there any observed evidence of this or just calculations ?

The creation of a black hole with the mass of the earth would require all the mass of the earth, which most likely would kill everybody present on earth during the process, not just a dozen.If the making was done by using some other sorce, then a black hole of that size would still consume the earth and kill everybody if it was made or brought here. But I can agree on that it is not going to happen anytime soon.

Is this correct and mainstream ? or is there a difference I don't notice ?There has to be some connection between matter and space like between the mind and the brain but that is not what I am asking about, of course since I am the novice here, it might be the same thing in the end... I qouted a part from one of the links You gave to further explain what I mean and are asking about: If the ant should decide to do something about his longer walks and tied one of the aphids to a rope which he tied in the other end to his home. The rope represents gravity and if there is no friction on the surface of the balloon then the aphid would stay within a fixed radius to the home, whatever rate of inflation of the balloon, if there is friction then depending on which is strongest the rope might also streatch and the aphid gets further away.I just can't understand how this is supposed to happen in the Universe without somecind of friction ??? If the light from distant galaxies reatches us then so must their gravity which would stop the expansion if there is no friction. (Except for their local speed which must be lower than light if GR is to be correct.) Also in the end of the article it is mentioned that if the expansion continues to accelerate at higher and higher rates then eventually the ground between our feets will literally get ripped apart all the way down to atoms and particles. Surely there must be some force involved to do this and so strong it is more like "hooks" than "friction".

Ned Wright's calculator is great, but it calculates when the light was sent out in the past to reach us now and I want to calculate if the light is sent out now when it will reach us in the future.I managed to do that with the calculator by changing the Hubble constant to 2.65 but since the calculator is not ment to be used that way the answere is likely to be wrong, "The light travel time was 300.451 Gyr", it seems very high. Anyhow I would like to try calculating myself, so I can understand why and how, if You or someone have the time to show me how to do it.

So could someone give me an "mainstream" answere to this question ?

Nope, but I have read about several balloon analogies, which all have in common that they create an optical illusion of the Earth in center of the Universe.

I have realized that Johnny5, Cadmus and others have different opinions that are not "mainstream", that is to be expected in an open forum. My own posts should also be marked in some way, not because I am against the mainstream but for I am still trying to understand and learn what the mainstream are. If everybody should agree then I guess it would be boring, and when people don't - who is the one to trust ? Thus I try to be open minded and draw my own conclusions from several posters/answers if they are able to convince me. (Which You should know by now is not impossible but not so easy either. )

I would like to get a grip on the speed of the expansion and acceleration buy doing some simpler calculations myself. If as an example the Sun has a twin star located 10 billion lightyears away, how long would it take for the light from it now to reach Earth in the future ? What values do I need to know and what are the most resent measurements of them with toleranses ?

I thought it was from our point of view the matter is moving away at an accelerated rate in all directions...Is this an optical illusion or are we in the center ??? And if this is an optical illusion then way can't the expansion also be an illusion ?

I must admitt that at first I thought You where joking, but after reading Your posts in the "Location of Big Bang?" thread I recognized that this is Your belief. I respect Your belief, but I don't share it. Although I think I understand how it answers my questions, Thanks.

I thought matter was things that could be touched and space was the emptyness between the things.

Thanks for all your answers ! I liked the analogy about the rubber band, Space is stretching like a rubber band so lenght grows, so lets continue with it. If space is stretching then how can space bring the matter with it, space has no friction ? Or is it the other way around, matter is moving away from us very fast and stretches the space behind them ? With matter I mean other galaxies moving away from us with what looks like higher speed than light.

I am not saying that You are wrong, I also just think the following questions are interesting. The outer curve of the circle is one dimension and it can have more dimensions tangential to the plane, but how can it be bent, like in a circle, if not in another dimension ? How did the start of all, The Bing Bang, get outside, (actually inside the circle), the universe ?

There seems to be a lot of threads discussing dark energy and dark matter, but non about how, in what way, space is expanding. (Or have I missed someone ?) When space expands, is it known if the space is streatching or new space is inserted ?

swansont, You nailed me for sure with that post ! You are totally correct about the angle of aberration and I admitt it was a big fault of me, not knowing what it meant. The angle of aberration is not the same as the incoming angle of photons, it is also higly dependent of a passing through angle. In my example with the circling car, it would therefore include the path of the bullet between entering hole and exit hole, which of course can be used to calculate the speed of the car. Since the angle of aberration matches the orbital speed of the Earth, it means if removing Earths orbital speed, the angle of photons will align with gravity. If the solar system moves with a constant speed, both light and gravity will share this speed, totally independent of their own speed relative the system = the system can be viewed as at rest, just like You said. Well it was fun and educational to discuss with You, I hope You at least shared the fun part, (on my expence). Thanks !

If the gravity always points towards the present position of the Sun it supports my claim. Where does it say there it's always a constant angle in that text ?I think it says: the gravity angle is always pointing towards the present location of the Sun and the angle of photons is always pointing toward the Suns past location. Which supports my claim. Nothing about if the differences betwen the Two angles changes, relative the Suns angle of direction against Earths position, or not. Well here we seem to have the main cause to our disagrement, I think the photons angle is because the Sun is moving and the Earths orbital speed is irrelevant.(and so does also van Flandern since he claims the photon angle to point towards the Suns past location relative the Suns movement not the Earths.) I will try to make Two simple examples to prove my point: 1. If I stand in a streetcorner and fire a gun towards a passing car, then the angle of the bullets direction when it hits the car will not have nothing to do with the speed of the car. But if You know the exact moment when the bullet hits the car, You can use the angle to calculate from where the bullet was fired. 2. If the car circles me on an open field, with a known circle, it still wouln't matter what speed the car has, the only information You get from the angle is from where inside the circle the bullet was fired from.

I is not meaningless to read, discuss and learn !Of course a hypothesis has to be proven with experiments, but I am not in that business. Sorry, but I can't find that part, I am problably blind, can You paste it ? I agree that the system behaves like the Sun is at rest when considering the gravity, but not when considering the angle of photons.

Which item has already been corrected ? (yourdadonapogos didn't read it to the end, and I have not changed anything in that post.) And Yes it's mostly facts, but since You disagre with that the differents in alignment would disappear if the Sun was not moving, You must also disagre with some of the facts or props. Which and why ? Well I can't do that, I don't think I even could make the math since it's in GR...(And I am not interested in that either, I am here to learn.) I rather think it supports my claim, I though we already had agreed that the gravity must act like the Sun is always at rest, as long as the speed is constant. You managed to convince me about that several posts ago. What I am trying to say is: If gravity act that way and light don't then thats why the photons and gravity don't align, but if the Sun should be at rest then the angle of light would change to align with gravity. And if that is correct then we could use the differents in angles to measure the constant speed of the Sun and Earth.

Yes, You are correct and I apologize. I just didn't understand Your post back then, just seemed cryptically to me, guess I am a slow learner. Repeat, repeat and repeat...eventually I will grasp it. I just realized I never said thanks to J.C.MacSwell, who was the one answering my question in a way I actually could understand. Thanks ! :-)

Have You read my post No 126 in this thread ? I am not sure what the word "aberration" means, but depending on the angle of the Suns path, (direction of Suns speed), relative the plane of Earths orbit, the difference between the angles of light and gravity will change with the position of the Earth. Also if the Earth passes in the direction the Sun is moving, both in front or behind, the alignments will coincide during the crossing.

Thats the kind of answer I would have liked to have had in the beginning.

I just stumbled over this thread and while reading it, this thought popped up in my mind, which is highly speculative but still interesting. In the Big Bang, the same amount of matter and anti-matter was created, but the grouping was not even so when the annihilating was over, there was a small rest of matter and a very little rest of anti-matter leftover, which are all the matter in universe today. What if part of the energy unleashed in this gigantic annihilation gave the universe angular momentum ? Edit: And then what... so what ? I edited this post to explain a little more what I meant, instead of "bumping" it up on top with a new post. The Big Bang is supposed to have started from a singularity and a singularity can have a spin. So if the singularity who created the Big Bang had a spin before the 'beginning' or if the universe started rotating after, then the rotation could be the cause of the accelerating expansion.

With our current technology and understanding of the universe it is impossible, and I belive the human race will do just fine even if we never find a way to beat lightspeed.