ACG52

No, because the're not really moving through space at those velocities. The metric expansion of space means that the further something is from us, the more the space between us is stretched (or the more new space is created, whichever you like best), and so the faster the apparent recession rate is.

Also, given that the theoretical size of the singularity is a dimensionless point, it would be hard to get any kind of timing.

No singularity has ever been observed in any way. The infinite density is a result of the incompatibilities between GR and quantum mechanics, because there's no theory of quantum gravity yet.

You claim two instances out of billions and this is supposed to support your idea? When you get back from your ban please provide an actual citation for these 'two out of billions'.

I don't now where you get your ridiculous statements, but this one alone shows that your idea has no observational support.

That's not the entire equation, that's the simplification. The equation is E2 = m2c4 +p2c2 where p is momentum. For photons where m = 0 the equation simplifies down to E = pc.

GR deals with a smoothly curving space/time. On the quantum level, space/time is not smooth. When you try to combine the equations of GR and QM, you get infinities, which is a red flag that something is wrong.

When the equations of relativity are merged with the equations of QM, the results are infinities. This is a sign that says, 'something's wrong'.

This has now turned into the thread you were warned not to re-open. I know from history that there is no point in carrying on any further dialogue.

There is no observational evidence of any contraction. You simply ignore this, and assert that contraction happens because it is 'self evident as in black holes'. Black holes do not contract, and objects in orbit around them do not contract. There's no observational evidence in support of your position, and there is a great deal of observational evidence against your position. There is no theoretical basis supporting your position, and there is a great deal of theoretical basis against your position. You have supplied no evidence in support of your position, either calculated or observational. You simply make statements. Your position is that of a crank.

Yes I know, but in line with Levy's example I'm assuming that magic happens, and conservation of energy and angular momentum is ignored. The point is, objects in a tighter orbit move faster than objects in a looser orbit.

There is no rift. There is NO CONTRACTION. This is the same nonsense you raised in the other thread, and which you were specifically told not to raise again. There are NO observations of any contraction. Stop lying. Your questions in the previous posts in this thread were simply a set up so you could try to raise your nonsensical ideas again. You've paid no attention to anything you were told, so there's no point in trying to provide any information. Information is an anathema to you.

When an orbiting body loses speed, it moves outward, not inward. If the moon's orbital velocity suddenly decreased to 10 % of it's current, it would move away from the earth. You know nothing about orbital mechanics or physics. Stop pretending you do.

This is nonsense. That youtube was one of the most senseless wastes of bandwidth I've ever seen. This entire idea seems to be a random collection of buzz words. There's nothing which even comes close to corresponding with reality.

That's exactly what this says. The only way you can say this is because you don't know physics and have no clue as to what actual observations are. Just about EVERYTHING you post contradicts real physics. This simply further demonstrates that you don't know any physics. So you resort to making crap up and calling it 'out of the box'.

I suggest that you actually read the article, instead of just looking at pictures. They're not talking about the SHAPE of the universe, they're talking about the GEOMETRY.

What?

Feel free to read for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html Not to mention that GPS, which is used everyday by millions of people, depends on special and general relativity correction for accuracy. Well, I don't know of any way to directly calculate the force of cosmological expansion. But since the cut over point between gravity and expansion is about 200 million lys from our galactic supergroup, if we take the mass of the supergroup as 2x1045 kg, and r as 1.88x1025 meters and calculate F = GM/r2, we would get 6.67x10-11 x (2x1045) / 3.53x1050 = 3.77 x 10-16 newtons as the force of expansion. Roughly.

By which you mean that what you are writing contradicts all actual observation and physics. I'll assume you mean orbital velocity, not rotation velocity, which has no effect on orbits. You explicitly stated that as an orbiting body moves away from it's orbital center it moves faster. That's completely wrong. The help you need is a bsic class on physics and orbital dynamics. And learn how to use the quote function, or is that too mainstream for you?

Is there any chance you could learn to use the quote function?

"Flat" does not describe the shape of the universe, it describes the balance between gravity and expansion. The wmap findings show that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that gravity will never overcome expansion causing the universe to contract. No contracting universe. No one really knows what the physical shape is, perhaps the universe is the surface of a 4 dimensional hypersphere. The 'visible' universe is a sphere 48 billion lys in radius, but that just means we look in every direction and so observe in a sphere, and that's how far the comoving universe has expanded in the last 13.8 billion years. Evenly distributed DE does effect matter in all directions, but only outside the gravitational bounds that hold galaxies together, at about 200 million lys. This has all been told to you several times.

There is no center point of the universe. There is no rim of the universe. The universe is not an expanding three dimensional sphere as you seem to believe it is. Further, Dark Energy is evenly distributed through out the universe, so there's nothing 'closer to the Dark energy'.

All that post has accomplished is to demonstrate that you don't know anything about orbital mechanics or gravity. You make assumptions based on your ignorance coupled with your own ideas and proclaim them to be fact. There are stars in stable orbits around the supermassive BH in the Milky Way as close as 15 light hours. That's the distance from the sun to Pluto. Furthermore, objects in a lower orbit move faster than objects orbiting further out. The orbital velocity of Venus is 47.9 km/s while the orbital velocity of earth is 29.7 km/s. This is the exact opposite of your assumptions.

Again, Dark Energy and Dark Matter have nothing in common. They are two completely different things. My best guess for Dark Energy is it's the false vacuum of the Inflaton field which drove the initial burst of expansion. In Guth's and Linde's Inflation theory the Inflaton field generated the negative pressure driving the initial expansion, and when the field dropped to zero inflation slowed down, coasting from the initial impetus, but steadily slowing. If however the field didn't drop all the way to zero, it would still be generating negative pressure. As the universe expands, the gravitational density drops as matter spreads out in the expanding space. When the gravitational density dropped to the point where the remaining false vacuum was greater (six billion years ago), expansion began to accelerate. But I'm NOT an astrophysicist, and this is just my guess as an educated layman. Dark Matter is something completely different. Dark matter is a form of something which produces gravity, but does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus cannot be seen and does not interact with normal matter. It does produce gravity, and can effect light in that way. We see gravitational lensing when we observe distant galaxies. We also know, from the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral arms that this gravity producing whatever is spread evenly throughout the galaxies in a sort of permeating halo. Because it doesn't interact electromagneticaly, there's nothing to cause it to clump together like regular matter does.

First of all, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are two totally different things. The only thing they have in common is the word Dark. It's a case of poor naming. Now the way you've phrased your request presupposes the answer you want. This is typical of you. You want to know how redshift is misleading or unreliable. It's not. The only effect Dark Matter has on light is gravitationally. It does not interact with the EM spectrum, which is why it's called Dark. We see the effect of DM in gravitational lensing. It does NOT effect the cosmological redshift. Dark energy increases the rate of cosmological expansion, and so we see an increase in the redshift, but this is not attributable to the DE, but to the increase in the expansion rate.