ACG52

There just seems to be a total denial of modern cosmology, based on ignorance of modern cosmology. I'm out of this thread. There's no arguing with willful ignorance

And you don't seem to understand what the acceleration is. The rate of the universe's expansion is known as the hubble constant. It is currently measured at 78 km/sec/megaparsec. This rate has changed over time. For the first 6.7 billion years, the rate has gone down, as gravity slowed the expansion. Starting 7 billion years ago, the hubble constant started increasing. That is what the acceleration of space is. It the increase in the rate of expansion.

No, it's an appeal to research, which you are unwilling to look at. Everything is moving away from everything else (in non gravitationally bound systems). The further apart two objects are, the more space is created between them, and so the faster they appear to receed from each other. From every observational point in the universe, everything is moving away from that point. There is no paradox. Your train model is flawed, as I've pointed out. You are still treating objects moving through space.

You have a basic misunderstand of expansion, as evidenced in your op. You are saying how can all these things be moving in space when the velocity vectors don't add up. The point is expanson is not things moving through space, it is more space being created between all (non-gravitationally bound) objects. All objects, in all directions, between everything and everything else. Your train analogy is flawed because of this. You've said that you're willing to accept that the universe is expanding, even though from your op it appears you don't know what that means. You've said that your real problem was with the acceleration of the expansion. I'd suggest that the root of your problem is with your misunderstanding of how expansion happens. I've given you the Nobel Prize winning paper on the acceleration. If youi're not willing to consider it as evidence, than as I've said, there's really nothing more to say.

Nowadays papers are prepublished and held on arxiv. The paper was also published in the Astrophysical Journal, Astron.J.116:1009-1038,1998 The primary author of that paper, Adam G Reiss, was given the Nobel Prize for it. So no, I'm not parsing words, this is THE research paper. So if your unwilling to accept the scientific evidence, unwilling to even look at it, there's really no way to convince you of anything. So why bother?

I see no puzzle and no paradox, other than something you've conjoured up, with nothing in the way of any evidence.

In fact, I'm sure it is, relative to something.

I agree, you have set up an illogical situation. You really think that you've shown any paradox or problem with an expanding universe? All you've done is deny it, while demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the thing you're denying. BTW, that's not a journal piece, that's the research paper announcing the accelerated expansion, along with their methodology and their data. In science, that's called evidence. So instead of refuting your assertion in words, I'm showing you the data. That's what science is about, not a lot of hand waving.

Why would you think you should get the same results in a gravitational field and in free fall? The laws of physics hold tru for all frames of reference, but you are comparing two different environments. The laws being the same does not mean the same results in all reference frames. Different environmental conditions, i.e. gravity and no gravity, will yield different results when the same laws are applied. By whom? By whom?

What do you consider irrefutable evidence? And if your not pursuing the concept, how do you get any evidence? You seem to have created a little Catch-22 here. Here's some people who did pursue the concept. And their evidence. "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201

With another poster, I might take the time to explain the basics of cosmology and the universe's expansion. But you've already amply demonstrated that you don't want to know anything.

Does that include education and knowledge?

Every observation point in the universe sees everything receeding from it with a red shift and recession velocity directly proportional to it's distance.

Your challenges might carry more weight if you knew anything about that which you challenge. But then, actually studying cosmology would offend you philisophically. You have no idea what we don't know because you have no idea what we do.

This is just another version of the long debunked Plasma Universe.

WHR, you make many assumptions and assertions based on pretty much complete ignorance of Relativity, cosmology and the Big Bang theory. You seem to take the postion that 'knowledge - bad, imagination - good'

WHR, everything you've written shows that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the Big Bang theory or cosmology. You should try reading some popularizations. BTW, I totally agree with Tar's assessment. There's no hostility, just honesty.

Not from the frame of reference of the ship. On the ship, everything is normal. Get a physics teacher if you can find one.

Spatial expansion means that everything (outside of gravitational binding) is moving away from everyting else, so nothing outside the observable universe is moving towards us due to expansion. It cannot effect us because gravity moves at the speed of light, and outside the observable universe expansion is occuring at effectively greater than c, so any gravitational effects from outside the observable universe can never reach us. Why would you think that 200 million lys is outside either light's ability to reach us, or gravity? The observable universe is 41 billion lys across, 200 million lys is relatively close. Questions and speculations are two different things.

From inside the spaceship you would notice nothing different. You would see the hands of the clock as moving normally. Only from a different frame of reference would you see time dilation.

Yes. We have a pretty well measured value for the Hubble constant, and that tells us how fast space is expanding, as well as allowing us to set that boundry. There is. That's the largest we've seen so far. If it is outside the observable universe, it can't effect us, since gravity is limited to the speed of light. Certainly not. But if you do want to speculate, you're in the wrong forum.

What we see flying apart are galactic clusters, further apart than 200 million lys. Closer than that and gravity overcomes the expansion.

What do you think you're showing? You can't see the black hole because it's too small. A 4 million solar mass black hole has an event horizon of 44 million kilometers. To put that into perspective, at perigee, Mercury is 46 million km from the sun. You don't see that at 26,000 lys. You see the effects in the surrounding gases, which is what the jets are. This sounds like the Plasma Universe theory. http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/category/science-culture/cranks-crackpots/

The first link is also concerned with the distribution of red giants in the M67 cluster, and concludes that

Relativity is saying that time itself runs at different rates, depending on the relative motion of frames of reference.