Angelo

Can you accept that Einstein was not correct about everything and that unfortunately too many people do not accept this

Actually I said, "There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago." Then you said "Yes there were. This has always been known." So since the expanding universe was officially discovered in 1929 it has not always been known, and since the speed of light was first calculated in 1676 by Danish astronomer, Olaus Roemer, this also has not always been known. I read and comprehend just fine

Sorry the speed of light and even an expanding universe has not always been known. Honest, not sure where your ideas come from as they are not based upon science

Actually if the big bang were real all of the information in the form of moving galaxies could be reversed to the beginning point. This is elusive however as there seems to be no such point. However to determine the true center of the universe one would need to know what the boundaries are. Without this info finding a center is not logically possible, also are you referring to a geographic center or as typically proposed the beginning of expansion which can not be found. Technically the Earth is the center of humanity in the known universe, so there are many ways to express center Wrong, as Neptune was and is not moving at 5 to 6 times the speed of light as NASA has observed. Also Einstein can not be correct as is now accepted which agrees with the current observations

So you want to return to the 80's and deny the billions of percent more processing power since then and how much data this has gathered. Irrational, you might as well claim that the Earth is the center of the universe if you want to go that route

You are correct but you said that this has never happened and I assure you that it has The 80's before computer imaging. What has resolution increased since the 80's Well to steal a line, resolution has increased billions and billions of percent since the stone age 80's. 80's like in Atari asteroid Are you serious

You are determined to argue with me, however I am just referencing NASA observations. If you know please contact NASA, they will accept your input because they are stumped https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1187112/nasa-news-albert-einstein-wrong-theory-relativity-hubble-telescope-messier-87-spt Do remember that Galileo accepted NOTHING and was right about everything PS. The Navy just admitted that UFO's are toying with F18's

The Hubble telescope made the observation not me, so explain your ideas to NASA and do believe me they are accepting new ideas because the old ones just failed http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt

There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago. This is why the new measurements are causing men like Tyson to question reality for simulation There was no standard belief at the time that was based upon science. Hell the standard belief was once that the Earth was the center, so what does standard belief have to do with anything at all?

What work exactly did Einstein do to determine that the universe was not expanding? And I am being quite serious, Hubble observed, Columbus sailed. Einstein sat down with a pencil and claimed to know everything about everything that he never even saw. Hubble looked and had to correct the pencilneck

No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse. By Adam Mann 2020-01-09T20:37:47Z We just might need new physics to get out of this mess. New physics means that the current rules do not allow for the observations to be real and thus must be corrected Or the universe might be more complicated than can be understood just by looking at billions of year old photons will allow for. Yes that has been done to me many times as my existence is not limited. See you can not know everything about me by what you see here nor can you understand the universe by billions of year old light

When I do not post the article I am accused of copyright infringement. Now do you agree or disagree with the article, remembering that if you disagree that you know more than the entire rest of the science community combined. Actually the article is about the newest most accurate measurement that invalidates physics as it is currently known. This is the crisis referred to

LOL Sagan said that science was over, that the pace of learning would drastically slow because basically everything had been discovered. Intel ignored Sagan, as are computer engineers today. Sagan was as wrong as wrong could possibly be as 99.999 percent of all knowledge is still unknown and may always be as we can not see outside the universe to achieve the perspective on what it is.

You would know it's a fish, in water exposed to 1G and you would be close enough to monitor it, and it would not be moving in excess of 3 billion miles per hour or more, in an unknown medium

It would help if we actually knew what the universe was

My assertion is that no one knows, do you know? https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html All the data I just received from you is 0 and 1's. They are irrelevant as it is your sentence in English that matters https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html Unknown https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html See it takes a bigger man to say "I do not know" than it does to know the unknowable No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse. By Adam Mann 2020-01-09T20:37:47Z We just might need new physics to get out of this mess. HONOLULU — A crisis in physics may have just gotten deeper. By looking at how the light from distant bright objects is bent, researchers have increased the discrepancy between different methods for calculating the expansion rate of the universe. "The measurements are consistent with indicating a crisis in cosmology," Geoff Chih-Fan Chen, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said here during a news briefing on Wednesday (Jan. 8) at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu. At issue is a number known as the Hubble constant. It was first calculated by American astronomer Edwin Hubble nearly a century ago, after he realized that every galaxy in the universe was zipping away from Earth at a rate proportional to that galaxy's distance from our planet. ... The problem is that, in recent years, different teams have disagreed over what exactly this constant's value is. Measurements made using the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a remnant from the Big Bang that provides a snapshot of the infant universe, suggest that the Hubble constant is 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But by looking at pulsating stars known as Cepheid variables, a different group of astronomers has calculated the Hubble constant to be 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc). The discrepancy seems small, but there is no overlap between the independent values and neither side has been willing to concede major mistakes in its methodology. So whatever you know...……………..it's wrong, when you know that you are right

Do you have any evidence about the speed of distant galaxies that eludes everyone else? See anyone can say anything if they choose including those that say there is no universe just Gods hard drive. Why do you tolerate people telling you that you do not really exist? PS. I do not believe in Gods hard drive, that belief goes to great physicist that say they do not believe in God, then say God made everything Is being that silly fun Funny how Einstein claimed that nothing was moving, that the universe was a static bubble

Space is a constant, the changes come from the mass moving thru space. There is no absence of gravity where mass is concerned All photons examined were emitted form stars that have mass. So the mass is the relevant object not the emitted photon

What is the evidence that the universe began as a cloud? Also since all galaxies are observed moving away from each other there needs to be a center. Also if a cloud expanded it would become less dense than the cloud prohibiting solid mass from forming. See the more questions one ask the more a computer program becomes viable or we must accept that all ideas that fail are flawed. So what if background radiation is observed, there are as many reasons for this as there are things in the universe that remain unknown it does not need to be a big bang which has now become a bunch of little bangs that all happened together Sure

Again if it is expanding for 14 billion years this indicates a perfectly cool center void of mass as the expanding mass carried the heat away. Without the void the big bang can not be scientifically verified This hypothesis could be at least partially verified by a void at the center of all expansion that should be traceable by reversing observed expansion directions

But the last poster said that the universe was not expanding from a single point, which with the size of the universe considered why would all mass start expanding at the same time. The questions must be answered as without a single starting point it needs to be explained as to why expansion happened form multiple points at the same time, if it did

So that theory says that all matter was widespread and hot just for some unknown reason all started moving and cooling at the same moment. What connected all this matter to begin changing at the same instant It's not like an event in the Milky Way can effect another galaxy on the edge of the universe simultaneously

is and has been moving away from this point for 14 billion years wouldn't this indicate that there would be a 14 billion year wide void with the center of this being where the big bang happened and matter forming a sort of expanding shell moving ever outward? In the absence of this how can the big bang theory survive?

how relativity which explicitly says that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light predicts something with the mass of an entire galaxy moving faster than the speed of light is predicted by relativity which forbids this?