zapatos

A lot of this depends on from where you are measuring earth's gravity. If you count people as being part of the earth (and I don't see why you wouldn't) then the earth has lower gravity when people leave it. If however you are measuring the gravity from the moon, and the people are in earth orbit, I don't think you would measure gravity any differently. You would measure earth's gravity as lower if your measurement was done from a position between the earth and the orbiting astronauts. The earth's gravity increases as additional mass is added, whether it is from space debris or millions of civilizations. If we gather on one side of the earth and jump toward the moon, and you are measuring gravity from the moon, there will be no measured change in gravity. You might want to get the person on the other forum to clearly define his terms and premises. When the earth was forming it was once 1/10 the size it is today. Does this person believe that the earth has the same gravity now as it did then?

Dark energy, the source of expansion, is thought to permeate all of space, including the space within our bodies. Dark energy is weaker than gravity on relatively small scales, such as between planets in our solar system, stars in our galaxy, and even galaxies within our supercluster. These objects are gravitationally bound and the force of dark energy is not powerful enough to overcome that gravity. On a relatively large scale, such as between superclusters of galaxies where gravity has weakened enough due to great distances, dark energy is powerful enough to overcome that weak gravity. Therefore the expansion of the universe takes place between superclusters.

I can confirm from personal experience that this occurs, and believe that not only is it justified, but that in many cases it would be immoral not to do so.

No, I am an independent. Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Right about in the middle. I think that most of our elected officials are honestly doing what they think is best whether I agree with it or not, which keeps me from taking potshots at them. I have no problem with political views that don't coincide with mine. My problem is people who are not fair and honest.

I am included in the 'we'. The problem is all the political B.S. handed out by you this entire month. And I'm tired of working on it.

Are you saying that the photon is now travelling at 2c? If so that is incorrect. If not, can you please restate? Again, it sounds as if you are saying that even though space between 2 objects has increased, that it will not take any additional time for a photon to travel between those 2 objects. If that is what you are saying, it is incorrect. What is a 'scaled inch'? Does it have different physical properties than a regular inch? Can you define 'scaling' (as in, 'the road extends...by scaling'? Is scaling synonymous to 'metric expansion'? Twenty inches are twenty inches. If a photon takes x amount of time to traverse 10 inches, it takes twice as much time to traverse 20 inches, whether you call them 'scaled' or not.

Don't bother on my account. I've lost interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Then we will know more about the human mind. But I would not say "What if" they discover something new about the human mind, I would say "When" they discover something new about the human mind. Or about anything else for that matter.

No. If for every inch of road I traverse, the road grows by two inches, I will never reach my wife. It is that simple. Correct. That is not in question The photons that were emitted prior to the recessional speed exceeding c will reach us. The photons that are emitted after the recessional speed exceeds c will not reach us. After the last photon that was emitted prior to the recessional speed exceeding c reaches us, no other photons from that galaxy will reach us. At that point the galaxy will be lost to us.

No. Why do you ask?

Sometimes I wonder if it is risky starting analogies because of where it can go, but... If this other husband started running toward my wife when she was still accelerating in her car, and he was running at 10mph and the car was only going 5mph, he could catch her. But if she is already going faster than 10mph when I start running, I will never catch her. We didn't all start running toward her at the same time. Some started running when she was travelling slowly, before she realized a bunch of crazed men were chasing her!

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.