michel123456

But you would have to leave Universe Alpha. That is a kind of effect. You would have vanished from (one) reality, and appeared coming out from nowhere in universe Beta. Or what?

The misunderstanding is also elsewhere. The drops of rain falling on Earth belong to a system that expands. I mean each drop is getting away from all the others (except the ones falling exactly side by side).

So you are counting how many oscillations in .... one second? as measured by a grand-father clock?

Counting gives you a number. Without units: a number How do you insert the units (of time)?

That means that if Gater hadn't admit his ignorance, he would have received more consideration?

So far, so good, but you cannot put an absolute value for a b c .

I find it impressive that the statement made in the OP article by a scientist that the universe is infinite raised from you a very quiet comment: And when the same statement originates from a new member, it becomes fantasy.

I don't know what you mean and it is not obvious. What is the universe now? Tthe one that we observe, that is to say the universe spead in different time frames? or the one projected in an human "now" time frame, that is to say a universe that we cannot see?

Yes. ?? Light appears always as traveling in straight line. There will exist an angle between the apparent source and the point where the source is calculated to be. And that means that the source of the light is (was) not where the source currently is. I have to believe you. I have to believe you. That was my point. Because acceleration is taking place, and delay occurs naturally in observation, both effects result in redshift. Oh. Are they both dependent on the distance, or distance squared? Oho. I must be wrong then. Wait: see each other side by side?? The one cannot see the other as it is today, but as it was a long time ago, thus not side by side (because side by side is what happens in the present) Interesting. Not surprising. That was not my scenario though.

I understand only your first sentence. Please explain again the rest. Thanks. There is no decreasing 1/[distance]. There is increasing distance between the objects. The distance to the attractive point is not considered, only the distance beween the attracted objects. Like the distance between drops of rain. Because people believe it works only in the case where the objects are aligned. But in this new case, the delay is not produced by an object having started before or after another. Here the delay is produced by observation. The scenario is a huge set of objects travelling in parallel paths under a common acceleration, with the source of acceleration so far away that all paths are parallel. It is about the same thing as considering a source of expansive push very very far away on the other side. Except that we have at hand no known force for a push, what we have is a force for a pull.

You are sitting in your car, waiting at the red light. There is a car in front of you, and another car behind you. At T=0, the red light turns green, and the first car starts. After one second, you start. After 2 seconds, the car behind you starts. The one second gap is the delay. What are you observing? The car in front of you accelerates. You are accelerating too, but the gap of one second between the 2 cars provoques an increasing distance. If both cars have the same acceleration, you will observe the preceding car getting away. What about the car behind you? If you look in the mirror, you will observe that the distance is also increasing, for the exact same reason. So, in this situation, where all cars have the same acceleration combined with a 1 sec. delay, all observators will see the distance between the cars increase. The distance between the 3 cars is actually increasing, it is an expanding configuration. Now, forget the cars. In the universe, there are no red lights. But there is light. Light propagates at SOL. Because SOL is a constant, the image we get of the universe is delayed. The further we look, the more the delay. When we look at a galaxy 100 Light Years away, we are looking at the galaxy as it was 100 years ago. Exactly as if we looked at a car not 1 sec. behind us, but 100 years behind us. The delay is 100 years. So, IF (if) we are accelerating, and IF (if) we are accelerating at the same rate, we should not be surprised to observe this galaxy receding from us. And what is most interesting, is that the further the Galaxy will be, the more receding it will be. The receding speed will observe a simple law increasing proportionaly in function of the distance. Exactly as predicted by Hubble's Law. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted 28 May 2010 - 04:12 PM Agree. But because the delay is caused by C, we know that the distance & the delay are linked. The distance measured to an object is also the delay, because C is constant. When D=1000 LY, T(delay) is 1 Year. Roughly. So, 2 elements of the equation are known. When a is known, only v is unknown. The equations give V (not D) as difference of velocity between 2 objects. [math]v=d/t[/math] [math]a=v/t[/math] [math]d=1/2 at^2[/math] Let's suppose 2 objects (p) & (q) [math]D=d_p-d_q[/math] (4) where [math]D[/math] is the distance between the 2 accelerated objects. We know that [math]T=t_p-t_q[/math] (5) where [math]T[/math] is the time interval, the delay. and we know that [math]D=c\ T[/math] (6) where [math]c[/math] is Speed Of Light then [math]D=c\ t_p-t_q[/math](7) and thus [math]t_p-t_q=D/c[/math](8) The difference of velocity is [math]V=v_p-v_q[/math](9) and [math]v_p=at_p[/math](10) [math]v_q=at_q[/math](11) V=a(t_p-t_q)(12) replacing [math](t_p-t_q)[/math] with [math]D/c[/math]see(8) we obtain [math]V=a D/c[/math] or [math]V=\frac{a}{c} D[/math] (11) Hubble's Law is [math]V=H_o D[/math] (1) The speculation of this thread is that [math]\frac{a}{c}=H_o[/math] by comparison of (11) & (1) see also(2bis) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All the above copy-pasted from an old thread of mine back in 2010 And as a note: it works in more than 1 dimension, because the delay is observed in 3D. There is no point nowhere around us that is not influenced by the delay caused by the constancy of SOL.

The delay combined with acceleration is the thing that cause the objects looking as expanding. Because if all objects are not delayed, it ressemble a tsunami wave: all objects are forming a front. Once you introduce a delay (meaning that some objects will reach the goal after some others) AND acceleration, THEN you obtain the increasing distance between the faling objects. So you have to take count of the delay caused by the constancy of SOL. And there is always such a delay. It is not possible to observe an hypothetical galaxy "at right angle" that would belong to the same front with us. Such a galaxy lies in our future.

It is not about an object going towards you. It is about 3 objects going in the same direction towards a center of attraction. All 3 objects on the same line will observe as going away from each other. It is caused by acceleration and it is not an illusion.

It is simple. Take a law that says that an attractive force increases as the square of the distance. It means the more closer you get to an object, the more attracted you are. Then take an object that lies on the same attractive line with you. The object that is in front of you (closer to the attractive point) will be seen by you as going away from you. The object that is behind you (farther to the attractive point) will also be observed by you as going away. Of course, another object, on the opposite side of the attractive point, will be observed as approaching. The "trick" then is to put the attractive point sufficiently far away such that no opposite object can be observed. In this case, all observable objects are lying upon parallel paths. And they will observe each other as getting away from each other.

So where do we go wrong when we hear eminent scientists say that the universe began smaller than a proton, then became the dimension of a marble (from A. Guth, I must have mistaken the orange from another eminence)?

Oh. So you all seem to say that at the the BB, the singularity was infinite?

This time I agree with Airbrush. Nobody can put words in anyone else's mouth. And I have also heard Alan Guth talking about a universe smaller than a orange.

Doesn't that presuppose an infinite amount of matter?

AI is already there, at work. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2014/06/artificial-intelligence-will-be-crashing-the-stock-market-in-3-2-1/

And your conclusion is....?

Most of the times what appears as large ears are prominent ears. ------------------ Otherwise there is a myth that says that when you have large extremities you have large extremities under the belt also. I don't know if it works for the ears though.

Funny. But it is not a stretch, it is more like turning it inside-out. In your analogy you say: an ocean with no boundaries, and more water (space) is constantly being added. Here water acts as the aether (dangerously). It is NOT a situation where the amount of water remains the same and is stretched (like a condom) "until it is a thin film of water".

Oh you mean you want us to address the following One interpretation is that a particle is not a point-like object anymore, but rather a one-dimension object (a line) from which we can observe only a section (a point). The line-like particle is frozen in spacetime. The other interpretation is that a particle is moving in spacetime and its world line is the path of this particle. The point-like particle moves in spacetime.

The "expanding until it is a thin film of water" is not compatible with Phi analogy.

The OP asked As it seems from the debate, I understand that everyone here must think it is a matter of physics, not a philosophical issue.