# Thread: Question about: Expansion of the Universe.

1. We already seem to realize,.. the Universe is MUCH bigger then we can see.

If THAT is a fact,... then how can they (scientists) be sure the Universe is expanding?

If we have no real idea how large the universe is,.. not even know the shape of the universe.... then, though our observations show the universe is expanding (from our single point perspective), this would only still be a good guess,... as we still not know the shape and ultimate size, of the universe.

I would gather atleast, not knowing the shape and size of the universe, makes any of our single point observations on the expansion or shrinking size of the universe, nullified. A great observation locally from our perspective.

For all we know the universe so large, ripples as waves on water hench forth and back, ... but in the tiny part we live,... being so small compared to the vastness (we do not know),... we can only see one kind of (local) movement,... and not see the whole picture.

...

Is this a crazy brainstorm of me?

...

I know there is lots of clever maths behind all the theories thusfar. But we all know, we know a lot not. Mechanics in Black Holes and such.

Perhaps,... if the universe is much larger, other calculations would solve the thusfar unknown calculations? Who knows. I am just shotgunning here.

Not very scientific,...I appologize.

2.

3. as we still not know the shape and ultimate size, of the universe
You don't need to know the shape and size to tell whether or not it is expanding, and at what rate.

4. Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo
If THAT is a fact,... then how can they (scientists) be sure the Universe is expanding?
Because everything that we can see is (at large enough scales) moving away from everything else. There is a natural assumption that we are not at the center of a "special bubble" that is expanding. And that, therefore, the rest of the universe is behaving similarly. We don't know if ALL of the rest of the universe is expanding in the same way. And perhaps we can never know.

5. I think it is mostly due to large telescopes on Earth and in space and their observations of what is called the red shift. This seems to indicate that clusters and galaxies are moving away from one another and the further they are from one another, the faster they are moving away.

6. yes, according to what we're able to observe, it looks as if the universe is expanding. whether it really is, only time can tell xD.

(still holding on to the idea of a streaming universe, that "cycles" through "seasons" for now.)

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
as we still not know the shape and ultimate size, of the universe
You don't need to know the shape and size to tell whether or not it is expanding, and at what rate.
what if

8. "What if" what?

9. Hey, OP. I'm a new poster. I'm not by any means an expert in what you're saying, but I can honestly see it from your perspective.

It's easy for me to argue that one point even the greatest scientific minds argued that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was not tilted, and they believed gravity was of an "occult" nature. But one thinker I've discovered made a good point when considering how scientists changed their perspective from "the sun revolves around the earth," to "the earth revolves around the sun." This gentleman said "They pointed at the sun moving through the sky [as evidence the that the sun revolved around the earth], when they were actually [observing] us revolving around the sun."

It's a great thought, OP. I can't really explain in clear words what I THINK you're referring to, but I think you're onto something.

10. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
It's easy for me to argue that one point even the greatest scientific minds argued that the sun revolved around the earth
I think you mean "religious" or "philosophical" minds.

that the earth was not tilted
Source?

and they believed gravity was of an "occult" nature
Source?

But one thinker I've discovered made a good point when considering how scientists changed their perspective from "the sun revolves around the earth," to "the earth revolves around the sun."
Perhaps what you mean here is that science contradicted religious claims.

11. Originally Posted by curious mind
(still holding on to the idea of a streaming universe, that "cycles" through "seasons" for now.)
is this a valid hypothesis ? or pure speculation ? what details do you have ?

12. Hold on, let me gather my stuff.

Hahaha! Wow! What a sunday.

First, Daffy, I'd like to say that I'm sure you're riddled with excitement to start squandering the newbie. I already know my place here so I'll just rightly oblige you.

13. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
First, Daffy, I'd like to say that I'm sure you're riddled with excitement to start squandering the newbie.
Squandering?

14. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
It's easy for me to argue that one point even the greatest scientific minds argued that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was not tilted, and they believed gravity was of an "occult" nature. But one thinker I've discovered made a good point when considering how scientists changed their perspective from "the sun revolves around the earth," to "the earth revolves around the sun." This gentleman said "They pointed at the sun moving through the sky [as evidence the that the sun revolved around the earth], when they were actually [observing] us revolving around the sun."
What is the point of this story? We know that in the past people assumed the Sun goes round the Earth. Later, more detailed observations, showed that to be wrong.

And ... ?

15. I think you mean "religious" or "philosophical" minds.
May I suggest that we both agree on minds that are creative, nevertheless, and in the pursuit of understanding why we are here as well as what is here; minds that are scientific, philosophical, or otherwise. I'm sorry for misspeaking. I'm really trying to approach this subject with a broad view, before narrowing in on specifics. Maybe I should have clarified that.

And, I'm sorry if I don't have a "source" available at the moment. But if I'm correct, Keplar's Law that defined the movement of the planets in our solar system around our sun attributed to the discover of the 23 degree tilt of our planet... so I would imagine it's easy to assume that before that they had no idea. I think what you're doing is pointing out the word I chose to use - "argue" - and immediately threw up your fists in the excitement of a heated debate. Well I'm not going to give that to you. I'm just praising a new perspective from an original thinker, with whom I can resonate because it's "out of the box." If you can't appreciate it, then well that's good and well.

Perhaps what you mean here is that science contradicted religious claim
Yes. That is what I mean.

16. Yes, Daffy. Squandering.

A new person joins a science forum without any demonstration of his or her own success and accomplishments in the scientific community, dares to appreciate a new creative idea openly, and then someone who
makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp
rushes in to effectively berate and waste a potentially brilliant mind by pin-pointing every detail of their comment, word for word and sentence for sentence, so that you can reply with a logical argument you very painstakingly put together (and kudos to you, I'm sure you are brilliant person)... so that you may come out on top as the genius duck.

May I ask, politely, that I just come here to appreciate, learn from and pose scientific ideas that may not always be correct but are still in the same pursuit of knowledge as you? I have no interest in debate, only discussion. I appreciate when I am wrong, but not when I am potentially humiliated for one's own ego.

17. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
May I suggest that we both agree on minds that are creative, nevertheless, and in the pursuit of understanding why we are here as well as what is here; minds that are scientific, philosophical, or otherwise. I'm sorry for misspeaking. I'm really trying to approach this subject with a broad view, before narrowing in on specifics. Maybe I should have clarified that.
Precision: science didn't make the claim that the Sun went round the Earth.

And, I'm sorry if I don't have a "source" available at the moment. But if I'm correct, Keplar's Law that defined the movement of the planets in our solar system around our sun attributed to the discover of the 23 degree tilt of our planet... so I would imagine it's easy to assume that before that they had no idea.
Earth's obliquity may have been reasonably accurately measured as early as 1100 BCE in India and China. The ancient Greeks had good measurements of the obliquity since about 350 BCE...

I think what you're doing is pointing out the word I chose to use - "argue" - and immediately threw up your fists in the excitement of a heated debate.
Nope.

I'm just praising a new perspective from an original thinker
By making false and irrelevant comparisons?

"out of the box."
Word of warning: that's a very bad phrase to use - it's a crank catchphrase.

18. I love being right. There's your logical, painstaking argument.

19. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
Yes, Daffy. Squandering.
Squander:
1. to spend or use (money, time, etc.) extravagantly or wastefully (often followed by away).

A new person joins a science forum without any demonstration of his or her own success and accomplishments in the scientific community, dares to appreciate a new creative idea openly, and then someone who
makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp
rushes in to effectively berate and waste a potentially brilliant mind by pin-pointing every detail of their comment, word for word and sentence for sentence, so that you can reply with a logical argument you very painstakingly put together (and kudos to you, I'm sure you are brilliant person)... so that you may come out on top as the genius duck.
Yeah, and so far that "potentially brilliant mind" has made a number of unfounded assumptions.

I have no interest in debate, only discussion.
One shouldn't start a discussion based on incorrect premises.

for one's own ego.
See what I mean about unfounded assumptions?

20. Word of warning: that's a very bad phrase to use - it's a crank catchphrase.
And there's your ego. I want nothing to do with it.

21. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
And there's your ego.
Perhaps if you tried reading some of the threads consigned to Trash or Pseudoscience you'd see that it's nothing at all to do with ego (at least not mine).

22. So, back to the original subject at hand. Why don't we discuss what could possibly make this true or false. The OP was talking about
ripples as waves on water hench forth and back
What makes this false?

23. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
a potentially brilliant mind
i am suspicious of those who call themselves (allude?) brilliant. usually they then compare themselves to Einstein.

24. Oh good, new trolls. The old ones were getting stale.

25. I'm sorry. I'm not referring to me. I'm just referring to the general activity by some people in scientific forums. I love science and the discovery of information and knowledge, but I am often disinclined to use forums to expand on these ideas because of the ones who choose to attack, instead of listen. Having said that, I don't get out much, and forums are absolutely a great way to expand one's communication. For that reason I still have a slight hope that I can discuss new ideas with other people without being barraged by people who simply want to be right and are so terribly afraid of being wrong. So here I am again. Nice to meet you.

26. i find the knowlegeable people on this forum. many of them are strong in many subjects. but you must understand that this is a science forum. pure speculation without proof is not scientific and there is low tolerance of it. attacking well grounded theories like gravity, evolution, SR, GR, QT, without proof will also result in counter-attacks. the scientific method can be a brutally honest 'war' and those who don't like criticism should probably not participate.

27. Being wrong isn't what I'm worried about, and therefore criticism is okay too. For example, I appreciate the way you are approaching me pertaining to your concerns about my perspective in the scientific community. It's well and good. However, for what reason does one deserve to be publicly hanged for being wrong? This is an objective forum, and challenging objective facts that have been proven and re-proven is clearly taboo; but what discoveries have been made by simply being comfortable with the information we have now? You pose the importance of criticism, I pose the importance of "challenging existing paradigms" if you will.

To say it all simply: Why do we have to succumb to challenging the people who pose the ideas, attaching yourself to the person, rather than simply challenging the ideas? If OP's idea is wrong then let it be wrong, but no use in rubbing anyone's face in the wrongness of it - that's really all I was trying to say.

In order to exemplify what I mean: I personally see that you, Chuck, are approaching me with a more detached perspective.

28. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
So, back to the original subject at hand. Why don't we discuss what could possibly make this true or false. The OP was talking about
ripples as waves on water hench forth and back
What makes this false?
There is no evidence for it, and no theoretical reason to think it is the case.

One can't just make something up and say, "why isn't this true". That is not how science works. We build models based on evidence and solid theory. That is where the expanding universe comes from: predicted by theory, consistent with observation.

29. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
This is an objective forum, and challenging objective facts that have been proven and re-proven is clearly taboo
not true. discussion and doubts about existing theories is proper and welcomed, as long as evidence and reasons are stated. willful ignorance is not accepted.

30. If OP's idea is wrong then let it be wrong, but no use in rubbing anyone's face in the wrongness of it - that's really all I was trying to say.
If an idea is posted here and it's wrong, it will be pointed out, at great length, that it's wrong.

31. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
This is an objective forum, and challenging objective facts that have been proven and re-proven is clearly taboo
Wrong.
Challenging established science with nothing whatsoever to back up your challenge is "taboo" (although that's entirely the wrong word).

but what discoveries have been made by simply being comfortable with the information we have now? You pose the importance of criticism, I pose the importance of "challenging existing paradigms" if you will.
What discoveries are made by idle unsupported speculation?

In order to exemplify what I mean: I personally see that you, Chuck, are approaching me with a more detached perspective.
As opposed to...?

32. Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
In order to exemplify what I mean: I personally see that you, Chuck, are approaching me with a more detached perspective.
i am not as aggressive as others because my english is not the best so it is sometimes difficult to understand and sometimes difficult to write for me. but i also do not tolerate willful ignorance. i am a big fan of the scientific method. it has worked well for hundreds + of years.

33. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
This is an objective forum, and challenging objective facts that have been proven and re-proven is clearly taboo
Wrong.
Challenging established science with nothing whatsoever to back up your challenge is "taboo" (although that's entirely the wrong word).

but what discoveries have been made by simply being comfortable with the information we have now? You pose the importance of criticism, I pose the importance of "challenging existing paradigms" if you will.
What discoveries are made by idle unsupported speculation?

In order to exemplify what I mean: I personally see that you, Chuck, are approaching me with a more detached perspective.
As opposed to...?
Do you ever say anything about science? I have yet to see you say anything other than being a jerk at others here.

34. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Do you ever say anything about science?
Not that you'd recognise it if I did.
Bearing in mind that the first time I raised science in response to you you replied with unsupported bullshit and then avoided posting further...

I have yet to see you say anything other than being a jerk at others here.
Then you're not reading all of my posts.

35. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by ByAccident13_7
In order to exemplify what I mean: I personally see that you, Chuck, are approaching me with a more detached perspective.
i am not as aggressive as others because my english is not the best so it is sometimes difficult to understand and sometimes difficult to write for me. but i also do not tolerate willful ignorance. i am a big fan of the scientific method. it has worked well for hundreds + of years.
Your English is fine.

36. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Do you ever say anything about science?
Not that you'd recognise it if I did.

I have yet to see you say anything other than being a jerk at others here.
Then you're not reading all of my posts.
I have not yet any reason to want to. Everything I have seen you say is just mean at me and /or others, and I have yet to understand why. I am not on a science forum to have some guy call me and others names.

37. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Do you ever say anything about science? I have yet to see you say anything other than being a jerk at others here.
You don't seem particularly interested in discussing science yourself. You rarely respond to serious answers to your questions (except, perhaps, with a joke or irrelevant aside). Yet you are keen to have pointless arguments with D and others.

38. I am not on a science forum to have some guy call me and others names.
Why are you on a science forum? It's not something you know anything about.

Were you a liberal arts major before you dropped out, or didn't you make it that far?

39. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Everything I have seen you say is just mean at me and /or others
Yeah, go back to what I said about you not reading all of my posts.

and I have yet to understand why. I am not on a science forum to have some guy call me and others names.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you posted actual science (after all, like you said, this is a science site) then you'd get considerably less flak.
At the moment you're not posting posting science, showing a vast ignorance of science and not displaying any inclination to learn science.
So the question should be: why are you here?

40. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Everything I have seen you say is just mean at me and /or others
Yeah, go back to what I said about you not reading all of my posts.

and I have yet to understand why. I am not on a science forum to have some guy call me and others names.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you posted actual science (after all, like you said, this is a science site) then you'd get considerably less flak.
At the moment you're not posting posting science, showing a vast ignorance of science and not displaying any inclination to learn science.
So the question should be: why are you here?
Because think there are people here who are not mean and cruel like you and actually do talk about science, at least once in a while. Show me a post where you actually do?

41. Originally Posted by Mayflow
. . .actually do talk about science, at least once in a while. Show me a post where you actually do?
if you look at his posts you will see that Dywyddyr choses to talk science when he is defending science against the stupid people, the ignorant people, or the willfully ignorant people.

42. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Because think there are people here who are not mean and cruel like you
Assumption.

and actually do talk about science
Yet you don't.

Show me a post where you actually do?
How about the one I mentioned earlier: where you responded by posting bullshit and then avoided any further replies.

43. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
. . .actually do talk about science, at least once in a while. Show me a post where you actually do?
if you look at his posts you will see that Dywyddyr choses to talk science when he is defending science against the stupid people, the ignorant people, or the willfully ignorant people.
How cool is that? I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far. Just cast accusations basically without anything but being jerks towards others and I see no science in that. I understand it is your style, but I have no use for it.

44. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far.
Back to lying again?

Just cast accusations basically without anything
Can you point to an "accusation" from me that's unsupported by the facts?

and I see no science in that. I understand it is your style, but I have no use for it.
Yet you don't post science... Go figure.

45. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far.
Why do you refuse to discuss science, even in the threads you create to discuss a specific topic? You only seem to be interested in discussing people's reactions to your posts, not the scientific content. This is beginning to look like deliberate trolling.

46. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
. . .actually do talk about science, at least once in a while. Show me a post where you actually do?
if you look at his posts you will see that Dywyddyr choses to talk science when he is defending science against the stupid people, the ignorant people, or the willfully ignorant people.
How cool is that? I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far. Just cast accusations basically without anything but being jerks towards others and I see no science in that. I understand it is your style, but I have no use for it.
you should look at my past posts. many are about science. defending science against the willfully ignorant is higher than posting nonsense science. i am beginning to think that you may be a troll in addition. and maybe lying about my posts too.

47. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far.
Back to lying again?

Just cast accusations basically without anything
Can you point to an "accusation" from me that's unsupported by the facts?

and I see no science in that. I understand it is your style, but I have no use for it.
Yet you don't post science... Go figure.
Tell me your position as to me being a liar. Tell me your proof?

48. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
. . .actually do talk about science, at least once in a while. Show me a post where you actually do?
if you look at his posts you will see that Dywyddyr choses to talk science when he is defending science against the stupid people, the ignorant people, or the willfully ignorant people.
How cool is that? I have also never seen him or you actually discuss science so far. Just cast accusations basically without anything but being jerks towards others and I see no science in that. I understand it is your style, but I have no use for it.
you should look at my past posts. many are about science. defending science against the willfully ignorant is higher than posting nonsense science. i am beginning to think that you may be a troll in addition.
Well tell me about one of your posts about science?

49. Mayflow is just trolling.

50. Originally Posted by AlexG
Mayflow is just trolling.
Yeh, for intelligent life.

51. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Tell me your position as to me being a liar. Tell me your proof?
First lie which I pointed out in a different thread, here.
Second lie: "I have also never seen him [i.e. me]... actually discuss science so far". I gave a link (in post #41 of this thread) to a post of mine which you HAVE seen, since you replied to it. There are also other posts which you've seen but chosen to pretend you haven't.

52. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Well tell me about one of your posts about science?
just a few from today. some of my contributions to this forum. you can find many more. i have also contrubuted to several non-science threads.
================================================== =============

in SR thought experiments all clocks are assumed to be the same and keep the same time, whether accurate or not. in engineering tasks it is always best to have all clocks keeeping the same time and all clocks accurate.

thank you for adding the 'from another FOR'. people who do not understand SR think that if they are on board that spaceship traveling 0.9c relative to earth FOR, that the occupants will experience things slowing down as in a dream. the occupants would not notice anything out of the ordinary.

many people with alzheimers can see a picture of a hammer, hold a hammer in their hands, knowing it's usage, even still capable of using it quite well, but can not verbalize its name. this is thought without words ?

i have read where sexual reproduction is a evolutionary response to protect against parasites. the contribution of two different gene sets.

i am reminded of paper writtne in 1931 by 100 people called '100 authors against Einstein':
Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if you want a real world example of infinity then investigate this: Fractal dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it relates to coastline measurement. as the measuring 'stick' is shortened towards zero then length of coastline increases to infinity.

this statement is true somewhat but not for reasons you make. Newtons law of gravity was found by Einstein to be special case 'subsumed' by the general theory of relativity. Newtons law of gravity is still good today and is completely fine for sending men to the moon. a environment where the relative speeds are slow compared to light speed or bodies are not too massive Newtons theories will work fine. this is 350 years later too.

koch snowflake is a infinitely long set of line segments that is bounded by a finite circle. this is also known as the 'coastline length' example.
Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

53. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Tell me your position as to me being a liar. Tell me your proof?
First lie which I pointed out in a different thread, here.
Second lie: "I have also never seen him [i.e. me]... actually discuss science so far". I gave a link (in post #41 of this thread) to a post of mine which you HAVE seen, since you replied to it. There are also other posts which you've seen but chosen to pretend you haven't.
I am not appreciative of you calling me a liar. I think you are a complete jerk, and this to me is true. I also think you have been a jerk without a cause at others here and so probably elsewhere as well. It is up to you if you get your rocks off by calling other people liars, but it is not acceptable to me.

54. i hold no special position with the members on this forum. i do not know any of the memebrs on this forum. if i post nonsense they will let me know immediately.

55. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
i hold no special position with the members on this forum. i do not know any of the memebrs on this forum. if i post nonsense they will let me know immediately.
They will let you know they think it is nonsense.

56. I am not appreciative of you calling me a liar.
He showed where you lied. Whether you appreciate it or not is irrelevant.

57. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
i hold no special position with the members on this forum. i do not know any of the memebrs on this forum. if i post nonsense they will let me know immediately.
They will let you know they think it is nonsense.
Correct.

58. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
i hold no special position with the members on this forum. i do not know any of the memebrs on this forum. if i post nonsense they will let me know immediately.
They will let you know they think it is nonsense.
yes. they will. and then i may argue my side but i better have some evidence. or i will look as foolish as you are looking now.

59. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am not appreciative of you calling me a liar.
That's easily solved: don't lie.

I think you are a complete jerk
But, unlike you, I'm not a liar.

I also think you have been a jerk without a cause at others here
Without cause?
Wrong.

It is up to you if you get your rocks off by calling other people liars, but it is not acceptable to me.
And yet you can't point out how your previous claims aren't lies. Your only "defence" is to object that your falsehoods have been pointed out as such.

60. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
i hold no special position with the members on this forum. i do not know any of the memebrs on this forum. if i post nonsense they will let me know immediately.
They will let you know they think it is nonsense.
yes. they will. and then i may argue my side but i better have some evidence. or i will look as foolish as you are looking now.
Chuck it is no crime to look foolish to these people who just want to attack at other's egos - they have no weapons worth worrying about.

61. Nah, what you're failing to understand is that IF Chuck makes himself look "foolish" what HE would do is accept that he was wrong, learn and move on.
As opposed to constantly whining about having his errors pointed out as errors and attempting to divert.
Of course it's not a crime to look foolish. But it's immensely stupid to persist in foolishness when it's been highlighted as such.

62. You keep calling me a liar and I do not lie. That is wrong. Also you accuse me and or others of being immensely stupid. Can you begin to see why I think I do not like you?

63. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Well tell me about one of your posts about science?
Chucknorium is relatively new, hasn't made as many posts as you, but he does engage in discussion about science.

You absolutely refuse to discuss science, even after starting a thread and getting some well thought out and reasoned responses. All you can do is make jokes and trade insults. Why is that? What is wrong with you and why are you here?

64. Originally Posted by Mayflow
You keep calling me a liar and I do not lie.
So someone posted those false claims under your user name?
Once again, you object to being called a liar yet you fail to point out how what I listed weren't lies.

Also you accuse me and or others of being immensely stupid. Can you begin to see why I think I do not like you?
That's right!
You're demonstrably stupid. And a liar. Therefore it's MY fault.

65. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Tell me your position as to me being a liar. Tell me your proof?
First lie which I pointed out in a different thread, here.
Second lie: "I have also never seen him [i.e. me]... actually discuss science so far". I gave a link (in post #41 of this thread) to a post of mine which you HAVE seen, since you replied to it. There are also other posts which you've seen but chosen to pretend you haven't.
I am not appreciative of you calling me a liar.
Then explain how he is mistaken. It looks pretty damning to me.

66. I will find a smarter forum. Bye guys.

67. The troll will be back.

68. I wonder what he thinks he'll do on a smarter forum?

69. An oscillating universe ? Big bang, then stop, then contract again ? In cycles ? Possibly. Nothing 'seasonal' about that idea, though it's among the possibilities. Barely.
Originally Posted by curious mind
yes, according to what we're able to observe, it looks as if the universe is expanding. whether it really is, only time can tell xD.

(still holding on to the idea of a streaming universe, that "cycles" through "seasons" for now.)

70. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I will find a smarter forum. Bye guys.
a better idea is to stop the trolling posts and try to learn from these members. i have seen them jump in to answer questions and help others. many times. you have to understand that this is a science forum. not a pseudoscience forum although there is that subforum. what passes for science on nonscience forums often will not pass here or on other reputable science forums.

71. How'd you know May is a he ? What did I 'miss' ? Besides the carnage of that exchange. Science isn't mean, or cruel. It's just facts fastened into working models. Lay-persons (like me) don't always appreciate how science is supposed to work; they make it too personal. I know this seems to (and 'may') contradict some posts I've made about the personal experience of getting stoned, as opposed to strict scientific analysis. The Empirical will always out-weigh the personal impact of something. This is driven-home to me regularly, and it IS FAIR. If your idea has merit it will survive the assault. If it does not, don't take the criticism personally. Science IS an impersonal effort.
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
I wonder what he thinks he'll do on a smarter forum?

72. Originally Posted by umbradiago
How'd you know May is a he ?
Call me sexist or over-chivalrous: I find it hard to believe a woman can be that stupid.

73. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by umbradiago
How'd you know May is a he ?
Call me sexist or over-chivalrous: I find it hard to believe a woman can be that stupid.
trolling does seem to be males mostly. a interesting thread topic: 'are most trolls men. if true why ?'

74. Originally Posted by umbradiago
An oscillating universe ? Big bang, then stop, then contract again ? In cycles ? Possibly. Nothing 'seasonal' about that idea, though it's among the possibilities. Barely.
Originally Posted by curious mind
yes, according to what we're able to observe, it looks as if the universe is expanding. whether it really is, only time can tell xD.

(still holding on to the idea of a streaming universe, that "cycles" through "seasons" for now.)
yea that's why i used quotation marks.

75. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by AlexG
Mayflow is just trolling.
Yeh, for intelligent life.
And failing to find it at home, you've come here.

76. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I will find a smarter forum. Bye guys.
Don't confuse "smarter" with "more accepting of what I have to say". It does a scientist no good to have his ego stroked and his ideas lauded. You will gain much more from criticism and critique, but you have to have the hide to take it.

77. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I think it is mostly due to large telescopes on Earth and in space and their observations of what is called the red shift. This seems to indicate that clusters and galaxies are moving away from one another and the further they are from one another, the faster they are moving away.
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases. If relativity is reality, and the universe is expanding, then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.

78. However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases
No time dilation doesn't work like that.

79. Originally Posted by gonzales56
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases.
No it doesn't.

If relativity is reality
What do you mean "if"?

then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.
Huh?

80. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I think it is mostly due to large telescopes on Earth and in space and their observations of what is called the red shift. This seems to indicate that clusters and galaxies are moving away from one another and the further they are from one another, the faster they are moving away.
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases. If relativity is reality, and the universe is expanding, then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.
I think this makes sense, yes. Tell me about time dilation. This is not something I have studied or looked into yet, but does sound interesting.

81. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I think it is mostly due to large telescopes on Earth and in space and their observations of what is called the red shift. This seems to indicate that clusters and galaxies are moving away from one another and the further they are from one another, the faster they are moving away.
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases. If relativity is reality, and the universe is expanding, then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.
I think this makes sense, yes. Tell me about time dilation. This is not something I have studied or looked into yet, but does sound interesting.
Why do cranks always go to other cranks for misinformation?

82. It's easier than studying reality as cranks never bother with facts or maths and do not approach any subject in a rigorous way. Reading asinine, incorrect statements from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about is a lot more attractive to the crank mindset than hitting the books...

83. Originally Posted by Flick Montana
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I will find a smarter forum. Bye guys.
Don't confuse "smarter" with "more accepting of what I have to say". It does a scientist no good to have his ego stroked and his ideas lauded. You will gain much more from criticism and critique, but you have to have the hide to take it.
Don't mistake a person with a desire to learn and discuss science, with ones that just try to attack other's egos to (hell I don't know what they think can get out of it) - do you really read the posts by most others here? gonzales56 did post something about science though and I am interested in this theory of time dilation.

While I do acquiesce to the point of not having one's ego hurt, do you also use "his" as neutral gender of mankind, or is it a possessive pronoun for you?

84. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Don't mistake a person with a desire to learn and discuss science
Yeah, we've seen how you "discuss science" - by not doing so.

gonzales56 did post something about science though and I am interested in this theory of time dilation.
Did YOU read the replies?
Gonzales doesn't have a theory of time dilation: he appears to have misunderstood what relativity actually says.
I.e. he didn't post anything about science. (And it's certainly not a theory).

85. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am interested in this theory of time dilation.
time dilation is part of the theory of relativity.

86. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am interested in this theory of time dilation.
time dilation is part of the theory of relativity.
Explain it?

87. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I am interested in this theory of time dilation.
time dilation is part of the theory of relativity.
Explain it?
no. you can learn it yourself. start here in wik: Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

88. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Explain it?
FFS: Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

89. Explain it?
one of my friends always says 'do an internet search' when i amt lazy and ask him to explain something to me.

90. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Explain it?
FFS: Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No. you tell me.

91. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Explain it?
one of my friends always says 'do an internet search' when i amt lazy and ask him to explain something to me.
We have the same thing with students, if it's standard text book stuff we just say FLIU1 (pronounced Flee-oo)

1. F*cking look it up.

92. Originally Posted by Mayflow
No. you tell me.
Yeah, here we go, the guy who claimed that he wants to discuss science, and that he knows what he's talking about...
You DO know that this forum isn't a school, don't you?
RTFM.

93. a forum is good place to ask questions about a subject. it is not the place to be taught the entire subject.

94. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
No. you tell me.
Yeah, here we go, the guy who claimed that he wants to discuss science, and that he knows what he's talking about...
You DO know that this forum isn't a school, don't you?
RTFM.
Did anyone else follow that logic?

95. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
No. you tell me.
Yeah, here we go, the guy who claimed that he wants to discuss science, and that he knows what he's talking about...
You DO know that this forum isn't a school, don't you?
RTFM.
Did anyone else follow that logic?
yes. he wants you to do learn the basic subjectt on your own then come back and ask specific questions. sort of like it is done at university.

96. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Did anyone else follow that logic?
Evidently you didn't.
You have claimed, repeatedly, that you're here to talk about science.
You have claimed, repeatedly, that you're capable of doing so.
And yet here you are asking someone to teach you the basics of relativity.
Are you not capable of at least skimming the relevant Wiki page, seeing what you DO understand and then asking pertinent questions?
Apparently not....

RTFM = Read The F*cking Manual (or FLIU as Ph said).

97. my friend calls this the 'youtube generation' where people now want every thing to be explained to them or they want to watch a movie or video to learn. reading is avoided.

98. Originally Posted by gonzales56
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases. If relativity is reality, and the universe is expanding, then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.
is this what you were taught at school ? where did you learn this ? it is not correct. is this your own specualtion ?

99. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Don't mistake a person with a desire to learn and discuss science, with ones that just try to attack other's egos to (hell I don't know what they think can get out of it)
Those would be hard things to confuse. I think what they "get out of it" is maybe the feeling that they are defending something they appreciate. I know I get defensive when people abuse or misrepresent the system by which I structure my work. I take it personally.

Maybe they get a little catharsis, too. I can't really say.

Originally Posted by Mayflow
While I do acquiesce to the point of not having one's ego hurt, do you also use "his" as neutral gender of mankind, or is it a possessive pronoun for you?
I said "his" because I was speaking to you and I mistakenly assumed you were male from some context clues. Speaking to a female, I would use "her". If I didn't know or I was speaking to a general audience, I would use "one".

100. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I think it is mostly due to large telescopes on Earth and in space and their observations of what is called the red shift. This seems to indicate that clusters and galaxies are moving away from one another and the further they are from one another, the faster they are moving away.
However, time dilation tells us that as things slow down space increases, and as things speed up, space decreases. If relativity is reality, and the universe is expanding, then it should mean that the universe is slowing down, not speeding up.
I think this makes sense, yes. Tell me about time dilation. This is not something I have studied or looked into yet, but does sound interesting.
It's simple to understand. Time, distance, changes with a change in speed. The faster something goes, the slower time moves, space itself shrinks. The slower an object moves the faster time moves, space expands. Do yourself a favor and try not to listen, or better yet, do not be distracted by those on this forum who add or offer nothing and whom act up a bit.

101. Still wrong.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement