ACG52

Of course both gravity on the cosmological scale and the hubble constant change over time. As the universe expands, the density of matter/energy decreases, and so does the gravitational field. And rather than being called a constant, it makes more sense to call it the hubble scaling factor.

"Anything which is not forbidden is compulsory."

In that frame of reference it has no kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is relative.

So you took the original diagram and reversed some arrows and added a dotted line. It's meaningless.

I don't see what your diagram is supposed to show. All movement along the time axis is in the forward direction.

Word salad, empty of any meaning.

If there's no explanation it MUST be space Aliens. QED.

This is not what is observed. What is observed is that the expansion is between all points in space. You seem to be having a very difficult time with a very simple concept. After the initial Inflationary period ended, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down. This is what would be expected because of gravity. But then, about 7 billion years ago, the rate of expansion began to increase. This was not expected, and it was for discovering the ACCELERATED EXPANSION that the 2011 Nobel prize in Physics was awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess On the contrary? This is what you said. Not much room to weasle out of what you said. So what Nobel prize was given for currently seeing deceleration? Yes, I'm tending to agree that you're a trolling crank. Prove me wrong.

The same mass, in a much, much smaller volume results in an immense gravitational field at or near the edge of the volume. But that's because of it's smaller size and much higher density. There's still no more mass than was in the original star. As you move away from the edge, the gravity falls off as the square of the distance and the gravity is just that of total mass.

Everytime I look at the title of this thread, I think it's an oxymoron. If it's hard to explain, it must be an Alien spacecraft.

Didymus, I think you did the same thing in the Alternate definitions of time thread, in that you mix frames of reference.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. When the planes clock and the earths clock are brought into the same frame of reference and compared, the planes clock will have ticked off fewer nanoseconds than the earth's clock.

The people on the ground would see the people on the plane counting fewer nanosecond while the ground counted more. That's what time dilation is about.

.The change could only be noticed from a different reference frame. No reference frame ever sees it's own proper time as altered. No, relative to the ground clock, fewer nanoseconds have passed on the moving clock.

Perhaps it's because the basic concepts do not appear in their language. You're arguing that verbal language is an adequate substitute for mathematics. But there are many languages which do not have the words or concepts needed. Obviously not the case.

Except all your verbiage did not explain E = mc^2, neither in English nor in Intuit.

The only 'theories' incuding the expansion of matter are from cranks. This is not the case. It's been very clearly explained, and I'm tending to agree with Arch.

So the ufo shot down the meteor.

Which language is that? How do you communicate the concept of E=mc2 in Inuit?

Please provide a citation for this. Gravity is overwhelmingly stronger than expansion, out to distances of 200 million lys (the size of the local galactic supergroup). We don't see expansion closer than that because gravity holds things together. That's why we don't see the distance between the stars in our galaxy increasing. That's also why Andromeda is moving towards the Milky Way.

I'm going to tiptoe slowly away from this thread and pretend I never saw it.

Yes, but when it began, it was smaller than a proton. (10-26 cm) And it all happened between 10-43 and 10-35 seconds. That's pretty epic.

What I find particularly annoying about this is that the abc article has no real information, and since the symposia was just yesterday, the only thing posted on the AAAS website is a one paragraph generic intro. Ever since inflation theory, there's been the hypothesis that the universe is still in a state of false vacuum. Should the false vacuum decay anywhere in the universe, it would be another BB, but this one would be a bubble propagating at light speed into our existing universe. If this happens, then the oft asked question "What is the Big Bang expanding into" would have a meaningful answer.

But these guys seem excited. Note that they're particle physicsts, not astronomers or cosmologists. http://www.space.com/19845-dark-matter-found-nasa-experiment.html I don't think they'd have gone through 30 rewrites to announce there is no dark matter. WIMPS anyone?

'Relativistic mass' (which is misleading term) does not interact with gravity. There is no change in gravitational attraction due to 'relativistic mass'.