michel123456

You look like a friend of mine when he was young. He was charismatic, he ran fast, the girls were at his feet. The moustache and black hair makes you look latin, like a spanish prince of the renaissance. Enjoy the black hair before it is too late (I speak from experience, the attractive grey hair is a myth). That's terrific, the world is yours. Compare that to all those mentally retarded who believe they "belong" to some town village or city just because they happen to be born there. Since you seem to have a problem with your origins (maybe I am mistaken), maybe you should have a look at some genealogic sites over the net. You may realize that the moto "we are all cousins" is very real.

Yes. It is weird. Except that rate of expansion has less to do with SOL. It remains that the 3 concepts are tightly linked. An object observed at a distant location is also far away in time and also receding from us. The largest the distance, the more in the past and the more receding. As seen in the diagram of post #36. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is even more amazing: if you know the distance to a galaxy cluster and only the distance, you can plot it on the diagram without knowing a priori neither time nor receding speed. If you know only time, again you can plot the new G accurately on the diagram. If you know only the receding speed, again you can plot the new G exactly, without knowing a priori time or distance.

Yes, "speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other". In my diagram represented speed is not SOL, represented speed is the recessing speed of galaxy clusters.

It is not a matter of opinion. Faculties of medicine belong to scientific studies. The right to practice medicine is strictly regulated. Yes of course. As much as I know, medicine is one of the hardest branch of studies. Did I say that? I don't know. Again this is not a matter of opinion.

Did they got a degree from a faculty of medicine? Yes.

You mean civilizations go west.

Wonderful. --------------- That goes back to one of my pet theories. We have that a gravitational field is "part of the same object" spread around it. We have that "spread around it" means space, and thus distance. We have that distance means time. We have that more the distance, more the time relative to the object. We have that more time means into the past relative to the object. Why can't we state that a gravitational field litterally IS the past of what we observe as an object?

It looks to me that a massive object and his gravitational field are 2 parts of the one and same thing, isn't it?

The last diagram from wiki is a distance/redshift aka distance/speed. My diagram is a distance/time.

emphasis mine. Redshift is proportional to distance. Redshift (aka speed) increases with distance. If speed increases with distance, there is more than one slope on my diagram.

Not yet, but I'll do that. Close is not enough. You need perfection.

So you came here, you listened, changed your blog, and came back for improvements? You are one in a million! Good for you. Your blog is almost mysticism. I disagree completely (did i said that before?) But I can discuss on things I disagree with. I'll try at least. Audio: _I found the audio too long. It's also a bit heavy to download. It goes well at the beginning, then it goes awfull, then it goes better when you talk about Plato, then it ends and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you did the mistake I do constantly, that is to put my conclusion first and the explanation after. Also I have the impression you want to explain everything, life, comportments, thoughts, physics, that's too much to me. _all the rest this picture for example Phi is not half Pi, as suggested on the picture (Phi is represented as the radius of the circle, and Pi as the diameter) It is wrong.

I repost the diagram. G2 is not "smack" in the middle of anything. G2 is a random galaxy cluster receding from us. Simply its distance from us is between less than G3: direction is not important, G2 can be north, G3 East and G4 west. The slope is the observed receding speed (under the assumption that redshift is a doppler effect) You can imagine as many clusters you want (G4,G5, G8) G8 would be a cluster far away, on the right of the diagram. Because it is far away, it is also far in the past, so it will be up in the diagram. And since it has a large observed redshift, it would have a slope more horizontal than G1,G2 and G3. You could plot this way all the observable universe. And you would obtain a universe expanding in the past.

That is because you are The-Only-Master.

Thanks. You did it, I simply drawed it. yes Now you are discussing something else: the curved path of light induced by gravity. Relativity still holds. In your diagram with the rubber band, the path is curved but light don't "make a detour". Light do not go round an object to avoid it, light follows a smooth curve. It is nothing different than a straight line in curved space. For the light to "make a detour" you need all the subtilities of Relativity.

Here is your example in a graph. The curve represents the ant's path. when the observer is at T12, the ant represents light coming from some distant object. If you zoom in the circle you get my diagram of post #36 The only differences are: there is no rubber band, there is no car.

@Spyman. Your are answering using the Standard Model of cosmology, I can understand all the above. However, I would like you to have a look at my simple diagram from post#36, without rubber band, and tell me where is the flaw.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions Yeah"(Madonna) (4 minutes to save the world lyrics) ----------------------------------------- Mine reflects the thoughts of mom & dad.

@timecontinuum This is not mainstream, but yes I understand C as an observational limit. If you imagine 2 galaxies getting away from each other at velocity near to C, I see no reason why an inhabitant of a random planet in one of these galaxies would not be able to build a rocket accelerating at any speed in any direction, just because someone very far away is observing him. But I can understand that he, or we, would be restricted to observe the other moving at velocity always less than C. Any other explanation baffles my mind. I know that is not a strong argument...

Agree, but yes I want to show something else. It is not about Speed of Light. It is about observed recessing speed of galaxy clusters.

Guenter, you're an intelligent guy: Use your critical mind against me. Did I made any mistake in my diagram in post #36?

How do you figure a U1 particle? Like a sphere ?

We don't see the same thing. In this diagram, the Earth today is at T4,G1 From G1, we are observing around us what happen. We see G2, G3, G4. Time goes from T1 to T4, up to down. When looking at G2, we are looking in the past (blue arrow). G2 is far away AND in the past G3 is more distant, it is also more in the past. If you draw a straight line from G1 (where you are) to G3 (the red arrow) this line will have a different slope that the G1-G2 blue line: the difference in slope is the difference in speed as observed from G1. It follows from Hubble's law: speed is a function of distance. IF this diagram is correct, then the universe is not expanding. So look at it ten times.

Bolded mine. Zapatos, you are forgetting something: observation doesn't happen horizontally. G1 cannot observe G8 at the same time. Please look back at my last post. #31 And tell me if I am wrong.

Climate weather models have a goal: look as much as possible like real weather. And yes, I will think as much as I like. And it will go bad, you are right, so I'll stop here.