zapatos

Ok. You believe a photon will travel at c, and that a photon can reach an object whose recessional speed exceeds c. But I missed the answer to the last question. How did the photon travelling at c catch up to an object whose recessional speed exceeds c? Similarly, how will I catch up to my wife if I am running at 10mph, and she is driving away at 20mph?

Agreed. Everything in the universe looks younger than it 'actually' is, since some amount of time, whether long or short, passes between the time the photon leaves the object and the time it arrives at your eye. You'll have to explain that in terms of physics. But it brings me to my question, which I would appreciate if you would answer in a yes/no fashion to start even if you give more explanation after. Do you believe that a photon emitted from a star, whose recessional speed exceeds c, will ever reach our eye? And as a follow up, if you answer yes to the above question: Did the photon mentioned above travel at c? And as a follow up, if you answer yes to the above question: How did the photon travelling at c catch up to an object whose recessional speed exceeds c?

Why do you think she is not Christian? Why do you think Christianity has a trademark on the cross?

I can see why you would think so, but no. Ideas in speculations are treated the same as they are elsewhere on the site. It is just that in speculations it doesn't have to be 'current accepted mainstream science'. The idea is that you don't want someone who is a novice to science to be reading a speculative thread in the 'physics' section and think they are reading mainstream science. It can be very misleading for somone who is here just to learn.

Right. We see it after the photon makes it to us. How will they piece it together if the photon never reaches them? If the photon travels at c, and the distance between the galaxies is increasing at a rate greater than c, how will the photon ever hit the back of their eye? That is incorrect. We are not 'reaching' anywhere. The photon still needs to come to us, and it cannot come to us faster than c.

Yes, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers. So what? Being able to see an astronomical entity one day and not another did not change any 'properties of the universe'. Someone could see what you did yesterday, but now I cannot see what you did yesterday. Does that mean a property of the universe changed? How is that different than I can see a galaxy today and someone in 100 billion years cannot see it?

Please don't yell at me; this comment is meant to be helpful. I think you have confused posting on a science forum with chatting with your buddy while looking up at the stars after ingestng some illegal substance. If you go to the bank and sit in front of a loan officer, the conversation will not go well if you say "I think that rather than talking about a specific business plan, it is more reasonable that people will just periodically send me money, and I can then repay the loan with what they send". You need to be prepared to discuss in terms of finance and business. Likewise, if you go to a science forum you should be prepared to discuss in terms of science.

Yes, it sounds like the opposite, and it sounds like you are back to your original position. Once the genetic material of an an ancestor is combined at fertilization, no additional information can be added to be passed to offspring. Therefore, if an ancestor 'grows to like' something, they cannot pass that preference on to their offspring. It doesn't matter how many of your ancestors 'grew to like' something, you will not be born liking it also. As an example, if for thousands of generations your ancestors broke their right arm, you will not be born with a broken right arm. On the other hand, if an ancestor has in their genetic material, gathered at fertilization, a propensity for weak bones in the right arm, then you may have weak bones in the right arm. Or if an ancestor has in their genetic material a propensity to consume lots of calories, then you may also have a propensity to consume lots of calories. This is much different than a propensity coming from 'what our ancestors grew to like'. Nothing your brain learns after birth can be passed on to offspring.

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. I should have made it clear I was just speaking in the first person as I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the Christian. I was raised Catholic in the midwest portion of the US (12 years of Catholic school) but now consider myself an atheist and secular humanist. My exposure to Catholicism has been almost exclusively positive so I often find myself shoulder to shoulder with the theists during religious discussions. And btw, you can ask me anything. I don't take offense when people ask about or question my positions.

Could it? How precisely would you describe the fabric ripping? What physically is taking place?

I've never heard this. Can you cite a study that shows a person's affnity to basketball is stored in the liver (or whatever organ you choose)?

Never having lived in Texas I cannot speak to the motive behind the second question, but it may be possible your aunt misinterpreted. In the city I am from the second question is always 'what high school did you go to'? People who are not from here also interpret that as an attempt to guage their worth and think we are rude for asking. In reality it is asked because it offers so much background with such a short response. You suddenly know if they went to a single or mixed sex school, a rough idea of the neighborhood they grew up in, what people you may know in common, as well as a conversation starter for commonly known events (You went to CBC? I love the new soccer field they put in! Didn't that kid Robinson go pro?). Since everyone went to high school it is a great way to get a conversation going (except for those not from here). Since so many Texans go to church maybe they use that question the same way. I completely agree. I tend to ask people who they vote for because I like to talk politics and knowing who they vote for tells me what topics are good to discuss. Years ago people almost always answered (although black people typically refused - another topic) and we would have what seemed to be an enjoyable conversation for all. Nowadays, almost no one answers my question of who they voted for. Probably because they don't want the onslaught that so typically results.

I look at the ads as pretty harmless but it certainly points out how at risk we are to those with nefarious purposes in mind.

Yep, that's how it works (although there may also be other parameters involved besides 'Baltimore', 'American', etc.). While it is possible they made a mistake here, companies are very sophisticated about getting their ads in front of the proper audience.

No, although I am probably conflating them. My assumption is that most of the people on this site who belittle Christianity are secularists, but then they probably don't belittle due to their secularism. However, now that I think about it, maybe those who feel persecuted are also conflating them. It is often atheists, not Christians, who call for secularism when their child is asked to say a small prayer in school, or when a bible quote shows up in city hall. If the same people who call my beliefs a joke are those who fight to keep a bunch of 8 year olds from having a moment of silence, I can see where some might believe secularism is just another way to harass.

If as a Christian my only view of secularism was this web site, I would believe that I was being persecuted. The constant disdain, ridicule, and dismissal of Christian beliefs would lead me to believe I was being harassed due to my belief.

Not quite. He is saying that the man in the future will be wrong about some particular aspect of the universe. Similarly, if some intelligent life existed 13 billion years ago, I am quite sure they would understand something about the universe that we are incorrectly speculating about today. You haven't really explained why you have such a problem with that concept.

This is your assumption, not his. Don't lay that assumption on his doorstep. What do you mean 'care' about such a view. He looked at current evidence and followed it forward, just as others have followed it backward to the big bang. You are criticizing him for looking at evidence and using his training to make a prediction; just like all scientists do. Why pick on him and not every other scientist? Bullshit. Now you are suggesting he is making things up and are questioning his integrity. Or that he has no intelligence at all. He made the prediction based on evidence. Where is the evidence of your Turtle? He is showing no concern over anything at all that I can see. He is simply telling us what he thinks. I saw no hint of fear, concern, or anything else negative. If anything he seemed to be showing amazement at the universe. The signal will never arrive, no matter how long they wait. If the signal is travelling at c, it will never catch up to the galaxy whose distance is increasing at a rate greater than c. Why do you care what his motivation is? He is a scientist doing science, and trying to convey his wonder of the universe to those like me who could not figure it out on my own. He follows the evidence to its probable conclusion, knowing full well that he could be wrong. This particular post of yours only confirms in my mind that for some reason you either have a bias against Krauss, or you have no idea how scientists use evidence to make predictions.

This is why it appears to some you have a personal vendetta against Krauss. Please point out where Krauss says or implies his model of the universe is superior to the universe itself (although I have to admit I am uncertain how a model of a thing can be 'superior' to the thing itself). How do you reconcile your view with his statement that "We should realize that there's more we don't understand about the universe than we do."? To suggest that simply describing what he believes the future to hold means he somehow thinks his model is 'superior', does indeed make it appear that you are grasping at straws to criticize him.

He has been conveniently hiding from that question the entire thread. This is the third time he's been asked to define what constitutes a valid reason.

Which ones of these were not questions?

Why? Because I did the EXACT SAME THING as you did?

And for the second time in this thread I'd like to point out that things change. It is not possible for everyone to be right about everything. Information is lost over time. People in the future being wrong about their picture of the universe is no more unreasonable than us being wrong about how life on earth began or what species existed.

Evidently YOU have no honor. You have no problem calling into question the integrity of others without indication they have actually done anything wrong, yet you object when someone does the same to you. And I'm still curious as to what you know about the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Marks. I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Question is, how true will they be?

Not even close. If you are going to keep saying 'no' to posts I make please first check to make sure you are correct.