Iggy

You had the same reasoning with Krauss. You don't understand something so you assume it's wrong. The supernova is a point source... meaning the angle its physical size subtends in the sky is much smaller than a pixel of the image you posted. It doesn't show up as a single extremely bright pixel because that isn't how cameras and telescopes and astronomy work. Point sources show up as blurry disks (just like the image you posted) because of atmospheric turbulence and diffraction in the telescope. Astronomers call them seeing disks and their size depends on the atmosphere, the telescope, brightness, exposure time, and it can be calculated with the 'point spread function' or the 'point smear function'... I don't remember... this is tedious. Post 55 represents a problem with your reasoning. Your answer to standard cosmology was to post an unrelated astronomy picture and basically say 'I don't understand this astronomy picture so I assume cosmology is wrong'. It's like hearing a Spanish phrase that you can't figure out and therefore assuming that something is wrong with Spanish and all the native speakers are talking wrong. It's conspiracy theory thinking. It is accurate. It's not very precise, but it is perfectly accurate. If you don't understand when events happen because signal delay is confusing you I strongly suggest learning to make a spacetime diagram. I'm serious about this. If you knew how to make a spacetime diagram it would simplify and clarify these issues you keep talking about. I think you mean 15 hundred, but yes, of course, supernovae have happened which we haven't yet seen on earth. No. The supernova and the observation are two separate events that happen at separate times. If a supernova at distance d is observed at time t then it happened at t-d/c. That's right. If you want to witness all of the simultaneous events of a single moment in the galaxy you have to watch it for 300,000 years (or whatever the radial length divided by the speed of light is). Ok... if a group of people 100 meters deep in their ranks all simultaneously shoot a paintball at you and the paintballs go 20 meters / second then you have to stand still for 5 seconds if you want to be shot by every paintball. The radial length divided by the speed. 100 meters divided by 20 meters/second, or, in the example you give, 300,000 lightyears divided by 1 lightyear/year. Why are you mentioning this? Are you trying to learn it? Is it obfuscation? In other words, you don't understand how standard cosmology can predict future observations without seeing the universe all at once therefore it must be wrong. It's like telling a mechanic "this is the engine" or telling a pilot "this is the wing". Good for you for knowing that. Please, learn to make a spacetime diagram. Open up a topic on it... not for arguing, but for learning. It would be very much worth your time.

Like MigL says, it is the hole in Bjarne's logic that prevents him from accepting that the universe is expanding. No By your admission you should recognize that there are observations that identify expansion and rule out the only other option -- collapse. It is a straightforward logical truth that the universe expands. It isn't a conspiracy theory.

At two weeks your son might look like your brother in law, but in a year your brother in law would look like your son and that would feel very different. When your son is less new and fills up your life he will become the standard by which other things are compared. In other words, it's far more unsettling to think "my son looks like an asshole" than it is to think "that asshole looks like my son" and at worst time will change your perspective along those lines.

Where is the 'universe is a huge field of gravity' model and where is it solved for Tolman surface brightness and time dilation of supernova? Show me the model and the solution that you informed us gives the correct results for those tests.

Do you think an expanding universe and a collapsing universe look identical to an observer in that universe?

I am afraid decreasing background gravity give you the same result. Can you show me which model "decreasing background gravity" refers to (I don't know what you mean by it), and where it is solved giving "the same result"?

The relative abundances of light elements serves as a test confirming the contribution radiation pressure gives the gravitational field. Fascinating, eh

source In case you need that translated: radiation causes a universe to collapse (big crunch style) quicker than matter. the fact I gave has been around for a good while (from the chapter linked above), I didn't invent it in the 1930s so that I could shape an argument with you.

The brighter a blurry point source of light the larger it appears. It is, however, not uncommon to see lateral superluminal motion like this graph shows. Is this a new topic?

the reality of expansion is confirmed by things like the Tolman test and the time dilation of supernova. Radiation pressure (which causes a star to explode during a supernova) has an attractive gravitational effect when modeling the universe as a whole. It increases gravitational attraction and makes the universe want to collapse. In other words, a universe made entirely of radiation would be more interested in collapsing than a universe made entirely of matter.

usually this kind of argument is used as an attack, not as a support. It's not an argument, an attack, or support. I am aware. Newton was an alchemist. If you have a point it is lost on me. Lemaitre was the first to solve the FLRW metric from general relativity. He deserves every bit to be mentioned with Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Tolman and all the other great fathers of modern cosmology. The way you phrased this suggests you don't know that a steady state universe expands. It has been proved many times over that the FLRW solution cannot work with a static universe. Friedmann, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker independently discovered the solution. "Friedmann's work", as you say, isn't separate from Lemaitre's work as you seem to be thinking. They were both figuring out the same thing independently. wiki is correct. Wiki is again correct. It should be added that the CMB isn't the only falsification of steady state cosmology. You wouldn't say "created". You would say "solved" or "discovered". [edit]that was originally my mistake though[/edit] After the publication of general relativity it was inevitable that a metric would be found to describe the whole family of homogeneous solutions. I mentioned Lemaitre because I believe he was the first. Pointing out that he was a priest is pretty weird. Correct. One could add the name of any cosmologist who has worked with standard cosmology to that paragraph, but my point is only that Krauss' name belongs at the end of the list. EDIT: I looked up the dates and I was mistaken. Friedmann did publish it before Lemaitre. I also think I figured out the point you were trying to make. You omitted Friedmann's name when you paraphrased my "it was created by Friedmann and Lemaitre and endorsed by Einstein" comment into "it was created by a priest and endorsed by Einstein..." so your point must be that you don't think the Friedmann equations work with the current accelerated expansion model of standard cosmology (the Lambda-CDM model). That is mistaken. It is perfectly described by the FLRW metric. The point is that the solution is nearly 100 years old. It has been the backbone of cosmology for nearly as long as cosmology has been a hard science. It is, in other words, very well solved and very well understood. To say that its predictions could be mistaken as a result of Krauss' forgetfulness is unreasonable, to put it kindly.

Like I said a couple times before, you're free to imagine. The model is almost 100 years old. It was created by Friedmann and Lemaitre -- endorsed by Einstein -- solved for accelerated expansion by Sean Carroll and many others, and popularized by Krauss. You're free to imagine that your gut feeling is right and all the greatest minds in physics and cosmology are wrong because they are forgetful. In an odd way, I truly envy the power of imagination it must take to convince a person of that.

That's already refuted. You know what Homer said about Athena in the Odyssey? "The minds of the everlasting gods aren't suddenly changed". If you can't change your mind on the simplest conclusion when you get new information how can you advocate liberal education? Obstinately holding to a regimented view is everything you rail against and it's all you're doing. Read the relevant chapter in the report. The 1917 vocational education act is founded on non-military concerns.

It's 'top of the world'. You might remember Bjork coering it... or, I think it was in Finding Nemo... or maybe Shrek.... it was in something animated I can't put my finger on.

Nothing to do with any reason I posted the link then. Fair enough... you're in good company, and bravo for having the courage to pick a post that starts "First, I don't care what some random naval surgeon said in 1917. It wastes my time to read it..." as a springboard for an unrelated segue.

Please, tell me exactly which claim of Athena I refuted with that link and tell me exactly where it is mentioned in this montage: It had something to do with the military I recall. Exactly what was the claim and exactly where do you think you just foiled my refutation, please?

Funny the qualifier "anthropomorphic" ended up in that sentence. Either you think it *does require* a non-anthropomorphic god or you could have no reason for having added that. Regardless.... No, that is distinctly not what I said. I said that an event which happens 46 billion lightyears away now will never be seen by us. What you and I just said is quite different. Yes, we do see the galaxy now as it was when it was young. Since we're being specific and saying "46 billion lightyears" we can in fact say that we currently see the matter that would eventually become the galaxy in its CBR form. We can be more specific and say that we (the mass that eventually would become the milky way) was only 42 million lightyears away from the mass that would eventually become the distant galaxy when the light was emitted but that space has expanded so much since then that it has taken all this time for the light to cross what was initially such a small (42 million lightyear) distance. I think you have no basis for suspecting Krauss' physics prediction. He is looking at it right because it is a correct prediction as he says. Without new evidence the only peace one can make with that is philosophical.

If the universe is accelerating in expansion then we would never see an event that currently happens 45 billion lightyears from here. That event is behind a horizon beyond which no event is ever seen by us. Krauss was explaining exactly that and no supernatural element need be called on when making that physics prediction.

the rays are focused by the lens in the telescope. Light goes from the sun to the lens to the eye.

Yes, it isn't to do with the amount the light is magnified, but the distance to the object and the time it takes to travel that far. You are watching now events that happened 8 minutes ago.

You need a more credulous audience. Physics is perfectly capable of describing the state of the timers without making any assumptions about God, and I truly hope for your sake you know that.

+1, MD. Calling a model "god-like" doesn't prove that God exists. A simple question would clarify, If you send two timers off in separate directions and conclude that they will count down to zero at the same time have you also concluded "then god exists"?

Are you calling the universe old? I think she's in her prime That's a good analogy for the heat death of a static universe. Life can't function when everything in the environment is the same temperature... by the laws of thermodynamics I mean. Useful work can't be done. The void between atoms and molecules also can't heat up. It's a fine analogy for a static universe, but ours is expanding. Like I said, we're free to imagine. "The stars are dead. The animals will not look. We are left alone with our day, and the time is short, and history to the defeated may say, "Alas" -- but cannot help nor pardon." -W.H. Auden 1937"

Have you tried Fringe?

It's ok. They were brown. It's far from the point and I didn't bring it up. The Iranians I know aren't dark skinned and if you're at all interested look at Greek history where Agesilaus invaded Persia and couldn't help notice how pale they all were (i.e. more pale than the typical Greek soldier who spends most of his time outdoors). Ok I don't know what that means. Old Persian and Sanskrit are very similar and old Persian was called 'aryan', but I don't think you're talking about that. I honestly don't know what you mean.