The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1638
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:21 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:06 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 am
You cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
The easy part is explaining away expansion: if the observable universe is expanding then other part(s) of the universe must be contracting or "time" flows backwards there or whatever. And our observable universe will end in a Big Rip so the expansion here will reverse eventually (there's nothing strange about this since the rate of expansion already changed at least 3 times, so it will probably change again).

The difficult part is understanding that all our conception of time are linear, but time may be a closed loop so the distant future and the distant past are the same moment in time (same spacetime event).
You are extremely contradictory. It's like you are making a collage of things you think are pretty regardless of their meaning and thinking it stands for saying they all fit together without a concern for consistency.

To be fair, just stick with one piece of historical step of discovery at a time. Do you reform your statement that Obler's paradox proves something static even though the ones raising it all thought it implied space as expanding? I want to know how you infer your counter-interpretation. Pretend we don't know what we known now. Assume the prior 'static' universe defaulted to prior to Einstein.

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:21 am
You are extremely contradictory. It's like you are making a collage of things you think are pretty regardless of their meaning and thinking it stands for saying they all fit together without a concern for consistency.

To be fair, just stick with one piece of historical step of discovery at a time. Do you reform your statement that Obler's paradox proves something static even though the ones raising it all thought it implied space as expanding? I want to know how you infer your counter-interpretation. Pretend we don't know what we known now. Assume the prior 'static' universe defaulted to prior to Einstein.
I'm talking about two "levels of looking at the world" and you are looking at it on one "level", so what I write may come across as word salad.

In the everyday, the prior to Einstein, and the Einsteinian sense, I see the world as dynamic. In this sense the observable universe is expanding. If it was static and infinite, then the sky should be infinitely bright, which it isn't. And in this sense it can't be static at all, because, well, it's expanding.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:06 am
You need to first find out how or why the concept of expansion was inferred, whether correct or not. But yes, the 'static' interpretation has to also at least be considered prior to expansion as a default assumption. So you can be wise to hold onto that assumption until proven otherwise. This is the intent of the thread though, right?
By "static" I mean unchanging. Perhaps I should write unchanging.
The logical picture is that we live in a part of the universe that appears to come from a Big Bang and appears to expand, but is fundamentally unchanging (all change is an illusion in the sense that spacetime is illusory in QM, but our observable universe was indeed packed into a Big Bang singularity at one point).
I already suggested it, but have you heard of the older "Obler's paradox" to start with?
That's a good argument against an infinite universe idea. So the logical picture is that the universe is unchanging and finite.
Read the link completely before you respond. It explains that the paradox was used from a static (non-dynamic) interpretation. The Big Bang IS an expanding space theory as is the Steady State as well. And, for precisely the identical position you take with Age, you appear to think identically.
What EXACTLY do you think my view IS?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 am
You cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
WHY can you NOT hold a big bang interpretation AND a static one simultaneously? The two are very compatible to me.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 am
If anything begins all of matter compressed into a point in space, the space can only come about by what is defined as "expansion". The difference between the Steady State versus Big Bang interpretation is about whether the apparent 'singularity' is indicative of a literal origin or one of an infinite past but with an appearance (illusion) of an origin. But they both agree to space as expanding.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:21 am
You are extremely contradictory. It's like you are making a collage of things you think are pretty regardless of their meaning and thinking it stands for saying they all fit together without a concern for consistency.

To be fair, just stick with one piece of historical step of discovery at a time. Do you reform your statement that Obler's paradox proves something static even though the ones raising it all thought it implied space as expanding? I want to know how you infer your counter-interpretation. Pretend we don't know what we known now. Assume the prior 'static' universe defaulted to prior to Einstein.
I'm talking about two "levels of looking at the world" and you are looking at it on one "level", so what I write may come across as word salad.

In the everyday, the prior to Einstein, and the Einsteinian sense, I see the world as dynamic. In this sense the observable universe is expanding. If it was static and infinite, then the sky should be infinitely bright, which it isn't.
Now, this is the best, and only, reason I have heard, here in this forum, for why the Universe might not be infinite.

But, because light diminishes over distance, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?

Also, because there are black holes, from which light is said can NOT escape, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am
And in this sense it can't be static at all, because, well, it's expanding.

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 am
But, because light diminishes over distance, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, so we would have infinite brightness.
Also, because there are black holes, from which light is said can NOT escape, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
well i doubt it.. in an infinite static universe i think we would have infinitely big black holes, since an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them and the bigger they are the more slowly they are said to evaporate. so in that case no light could reach us / we humans couldn't be here at all because we too would have been sucked into black holes. none of this makes much sense..

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:56 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 am
But, because light diminishes over distance, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, so we would have infinite brightness.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then okay.
Also, because there are black holes, from which light is said can NOT escape, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
well i doubt it.. in an infinite static universe
What does an 'infinite static universe' mean to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
i think we would have infinitely big black holes,
Why would you think such a thing?

Did you think about what is at the end of a black hole AND what then happens to that thing?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
since an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them
Just because you THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes, does NOT mean that an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them.

First, you would have to explain WHY you even THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes? All I said was because there are black holes could this help to explain some thing. WHY did you and WHAT made you jump to the conclusion that there would have to be infinitely big black holes?

Also, if there were infinitely big black holes, where all stuff has fallen into them, WHERE do you propose ALL of this stuff went to?

If the Universe is infinite, then ALL of that stuff would still be in this one and only infinite Universe. Unless of course it just all disappears "into thin air" as some say. But is this even a possibility.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
and the bigger they are the more slowly they are said to evaporate. so in that case no light could reach us / we humans couldn't be here at all because we too would have been sucked into black holes. none of this makes much sense..
Fair enough. If it does NOT make sense to you, and you do NOT wish to seek any further clarification nor clarity on this matter, then that is it then.

By the way IF there is INFINITELY "big" black holes, then do you realize that they would be connected and so really be just one hole, no matter what size you TRY to give them?

Also, if these two things, which I have suggest, do NOT help to explain to you WHY the Universe is NOT infinitely bright, and NONE OF THIS makes much sense to you also, then that must mean, to you, that the Universe MUST BE expanding, correct?

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:11 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:56 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 am
But, because light diminishes over distance, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, so we would have infinite brightness.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then okay.
Here it's a fact, not a belief, idiot.
Also, because there are black holes, from which light is said can NOT escape, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
well i doubt it.. in an infinite static universe
What does an 'infinite static universe' mean to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
i think we would have infinitely big black holes,
Why would you think such a thing?

Did you think about what is at the end of a black hole AND what then happens to that thing?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
since an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them
Just because you THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes, does NOT mean that an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them.

First, you would have to explain WHY you even THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes? All I said was because there are black holes could this help to explain some thing. WHY did you and WHAT made you jump to the conclusion that there would have to be infinitely big black holes?

Also, if there were infinitely big black holes, where all stuff has fallen into them, WHERE do you propose ALL of this stuff went to?

If the Universe is infinite, then ALL of that stuff would still be in this one and only infinite Universe. Unless of course it just all disappears "into thin air" as some say. But is this even a possibility.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
and the bigger they are the more slowly they are said to evaporate. so in that case no light could reach us / we humans couldn't be here at all because we too would have been sucked into black holes. none of this makes much sense..
Fair enough. If it does NOT make sense to you, and you do NOT wish to seek any further clarification nor clarity on this matter, then that is it then.

By the way IF there is INFINITELY "big" black holes, then do you realize that they would be connected and so really be just one hole, no matter what size you TRY to give them?

Also, if these two things, which I have suggest, do NOT help to explain to you WHY the Universe is NOT infinitely bright, and NONE OF THIS makes much sense to you also, then that must mean, to you, that the Universe MUST BE expanding, correct?
At least try to comprehend what you are replying to, the context was the Olbers-paradox.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:26 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:11 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:56 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am

Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, so we would have infinite brightness.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then okay.
Here it's a fact, not a belief, idiot.
If you say so.

So, if, say I was trillions and trillions and trillions of trillions of light years away from you on earth, and I shone my 9 volt torch in your direction, then it is a fact that you would see the light, because it spreads out and does NOT diminish, even if I am an idiot or not, correct?

(This question is asked for clarification, before, we even move onto to LOOKING AT the sun in relation to infinite brightness).
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:11 am
well i doubt it.. in an infinite static universe
What does an 'infinite static universe' mean to you?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
i think we would have infinitely big black holes,
Why would you think such a thing?

Did you think about what is at the end of a black hole AND what then happens to that thing?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
since an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them
Just because you THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes, does NOT mean that an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them.

First, you would have to explain WHY you even THINK "we" would have infinitely big black holes? All I said was because there are black holes could this help to explain some thing. WHY did you and WHAT made you jump to the conclusion that there would have to be infinitely big black holes?

Also, if there were infinitely big black holes, where all stuff has fallen into them, WHERE do you propose ALL of this stuff went to?

If the Universe is infinite, then ALL of that stuff would still be in this one and only infinite Universe. Unless of course it just all disappears "into thin air" as some say. But is this even a possibility.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
and the bigger they are the more slowly they are said to evaporate. so in that case no light could reach us / we humans couldn't be here at all because we too would have been sucked into black holes. none of this makes much sense..
Fair enough. If it does NOT make sense to you, and you do NOT wish to seek any further clarification nor clarity on this matter, then that is it then.

By the way IF there is INFINITELY "big" black holes, then do you realize that they would be connected and so really be just one hole, no matter what size you TRY to give them?

Also, if these two things, which I have suggest, do NOT help to explain to you WHY the Universe is NOT infinitely bright, and NONE OF THIS makes much sense to you also, then that must mean, to you, that the Universe MUST BE expanding, correct?
At least try to comprehend what you are replying to, the context was the Olbers-paradox.
Would you care to explain the context of the so called "olbers-paradox" in very simple terms, from your perspective?

That way I will gain a better comprehension of what is that you want me to comprehend what I am supposedly replying to.

I was under the understanding that I was replying to what YOU WROTE, which apparently you may NOT have comprehended at all if this is the only response you can reply with?

Also, I asked what does an 'infinite static universe' mean to you? Do you think I will find that clarifying answer within the "olbers-paradox"?

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:33 am

Atla.

The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

But you just said that overall light does NOT diminish but instead spreads out. So, which one is True? Your version or the "olbers-supposed-paradox" version?

Also, is light ONLY dimmed because of receding, or because of distance? Or, do you still say it is a fact that light does NOT dim but instead spread out?

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:33 am
Atla.

The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

But you just said that overall light does NOT diminish but instead spreads out. So, which one is True? Your version or the "olbers-supposed-paradox" version?

Also, is light ONLY dimmed because of receding, or because of distance? Or, do you still say it is a fact that light does NOT dim but instead spread out?
And now you are claiming that an infinite universe can expand, get bigger.

If you have no idea what you're talking about then don't comment.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:57 am

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:33 am
Atla.

The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

But you just said that overall light does NOT diminish but instead spreads out. So, which one is True? Your version or the "olbers-supposed-paradox" version?

Also, is light ONLY dimmed because of receding, or because of distance? Or, do you still say it is a fact that light does NOT dim but instead spread out?
And now you are claiming that an infinite universe can expand, get bigger.
LOL WHERE did I EVER claim that?

Or, is this just an ATTEMPT to deflect away from what I ACTUALLY DID SAY?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am
If you have no idea what you're talking about then don't comment.
Great advice.

But let us SEE what actually happened here.

Are you responding to my clarifying questions, or NOT answering my clarifying questions?

Did I actually claim that an infinite Universe can expand, get bigger, or did you just say that to TRY TO deflect away from the actual issues that I have been CLEARLY pointing out and showing?

Are you saying things in response to what I am pointing out, or are you saying things like; "If you have no idea about what you're talking about then don't comment", in order to take away from what I have just highlight is the WRONGNESS of what you have written and so far you WILL NOT respond to?

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:05 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:57 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:33 am
Atla.

The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

But you just said that overall light does NOT diminish but instead spreads out. So, which one is True? Your version or the "olbers-supposed-paradox" version?

Also, is light ONLY dimmed because of receding, or because of distance? Or, do you still say it is a fact that light does NOT dim but instead spread out?
And now you are claiming that an infinite universe can expand, get bigger.
LOL WHERE did I EVER claim that?

Or, is this just an ATTEMPT to deflect away from what I ACTUALLY DID SAY?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am
If you have no idea what you're talking about then don't comment.
Great advice.

But let us SEE what actually happened here.

Are you responding to my clarifying questions, or NOT answering my clarifying questions?

Did I actually claim that an infinite Universe can expand, get bigger, or did you just say that to TRY TO deflect away from the actual issues that I have been CLEARLY pointing out and showing?

Are you saying things in response to what I am pointing out, or are you saying things like; "If you have no idea about what you're talking about then don't comment", in order to take away from what I have just highlight is the WRONGNESS of what you have written and so far you WILL NOT respond to?
YOU wrote that to you, it says that light is dimmed because the universe is expanding. Amnesiac much?

But the Olbers paradox was invented long before they realized that the universe was expanding. And the Olbers paradox talks about an infinite universe so even according to you it can't expand.

As usual you haven't demonstrated anything to anyone other than your own idiocy. Who the fuck do you think you are to have pointed out the wrongness in what I write?

You are a worthless, delusional piece of shit completely full of yourself.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:42 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:05 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:57 am
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am

And now you are claiming that an infinite universe can expand, get bigger.
LOL WHERE did I EVER claim that?

Or, is this just an ATTEMPT to deflect away from what I ACTUALLY DID SAY?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:49 am
If you have no idea what you're talking about then don't comment.
Great advice.

But let us SEE what actually happened here.

Are you responding to my clarifying questions, or NOT answering my clarifying questions?

Did I actually claim that an infinite Universe can expand, get bigger, or did you just say that to TRY TO deflect away from the actual issues that I have been CLEARLY pointing out and showing?

Are you saying things in response to what I am pointing out, or are you saying things like; "If you have no idea about what you're talking about then don't comment", in order to take away from what I have just highlight is the WRONGNESS of what you have written and so far you WILL NOT respond to?
YOU wrote that to you, it says that light is dimmed because the universe is expanding. Amnesiac much?
You could NOT have misconstrued this, taken it out of context nor got what I said any more WRONG even if you tried. I said:
The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

YES I wrote: That to me, 'it' says: ('it' being the so called "olbers-paradox") SAYS that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because the stars are receding away from the observer as the universe expands.

I did NOT say, and repeat, I DID NOT SAY, that light IS dimmed because the universe is expanding.

If you STILL have NOT seen the difference. I said: the "olbers-paradox" SAYS that the universe is expanding. I did NOT say that the universe is expanding. That is WHAT the "olbers-paradox" SAYS. There is a HUGE difference here, which obviously you did NOT notice, recognize, nor SEE.

In case you are STILL unaware I say: From what I have seen I have NOT observed any expansion of the Universe, Itself, as such my VIEW is the Universe is infinite and eternal. Just so it is CLEAR I say: the Universe is NOT expanding nor getting bigger.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:05 pm
But the Olbers paradox was invented long before they realized that the universe was expanding. And the Olbers paradox talks about an infinite universe so even according to you it can't expand.
This is what I read regarding the "olbers-paradox". SEE if this AGREES with what you are saying here. IF it does NOT, then tell us what is WRONG with this explanation of the "olbers-paradox", and then tell us what it is MEANT TO BE.

The apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous. This is not the case because the universe is of finite age, and the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To me this explanation clearly does NOT say what you are suggesting. To make it CLEAR, for you, you stated:
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, Whereas, the "olbers-paradox" states:
The light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To make it even SIMPLER for you to CLEAR up for us.
You say: Light does NOT diminish.
Olbers-paradox says: Light IS dimmed.

So, IF light dims but does NOT diminish, then would a 9volt torch shined in your direction been seen by you NO matter what distance it is away from you as it recedes away from you?

If yes, then great.
If no, then even better.

Which one is it?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:05 pm
As usual you haven't demonstrated anything to anyone other than your own idiocy. Who the fuck do you think you are to have pointed out the wrongness in what I write?
Who I think the 'you' is is the person within this body. This person is made up of different thoughts than the 'you' in that body. The thoughts within this body are NOT necessarily right, but just a view obtained from what the body has experienced. These views are expressed in written words in this forum of which the views that are WRONG are hopefully sorted out and brought to the attention of the readers here.

Who do you think 'you' are?

By the way you NEVER clarified the questions I asked you regarding whether light diminishes with supposedly receding stars, as proposed by the "olbers-paradox", which you referred me to, to comprehend, OR, is it a FACT that light does NOT diminish but only spreads out, as you STATED IS THE CASE, as well as me being an idiot for NOT knowing that it is a FACT?

I have asked you which version is True, your version or the "olbers-paradox" version, which you wanted me to comprehend? If you still have NOT yet noticed YOUR VERSION clearly is in contradiction of the OTHER "olber-paradox" VERSION.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:05 pm
You are a worthless, delusional piece of shit completely full of yourself.
If you say so, then that is WHAT 'i' AM.

Either way this still does NOT clear up what I have highlighted in regards to your BELIEF that the universe is expanding. Or, is the universe expanding an actual FACT also?

Atla
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Atla » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:42 pm
You could NOT have misconstrued this, taken it out of context nor got what I said any more WRONG even if you tried. I said:
The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

YES I wrote: That to me, 'it' says: ('it' being the so called "olbers-paradox") SAYS that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because the stars are receding away from the observer as the universe expands.

I did NOT say, and repeat, I DID NOT SAY, that light IS dimmed because the universe is expanding.

If you STILL have NOT seen the difference. I said: the "olbers-paradox" SAYS that the universe is expanding. I did NOT say that the universe is expanding. That is WHAT the "olbers-paradox" SAYS. There is a HUGE difference here, which obviously you did NOT notice, recognize, nor SEE.
No you idiot, the Olbers paradox talks about a static universe, which doesn't expand. An expanding universe is the resolution to the paradox.
In case you are STILL unaware I say: From what I have seen I have NOT observed any expansion of the Universe, Itself, as such my VIEW is the Universe is infinite and eternal. Just so it is CLEAR I say: the Universe is NOT expanding nor getting bigger.
Yes you are an idiot, we know since 90 years that the observable universe is "expanding" but you didn't get the memo somehow.
This is what I read regarding the "olbers-paradox". SEE if this AGREES with what you are saying here. IF it does NOT, then tell us what is WRONG with this explanation of the "olbers-paradox", and then tell us what it is MEANT TO BE.

The apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous. This is not the case because the universe is of finite age, and the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To me this explanation clearly does NOT say what you are suggesting. To make it CLEAR, for you, you stated:
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, Whereas, the "olbers-paradox" states:
The light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To make it even SIMPLER for you to CLEAR up for us.
You say: Light does NOT diminish.
Olbers-paradox says: Light IS dimmed.

So, IF light dims but does NOT diminish, then would a 9volt torch shined in your direction been seen by you NO matter what distance it is away from you as it recedes away from you?

If yes, then great.
If no, then even better.

Which one is it?
Yes you idiot NOW we know that the universe is of finite age.
Who I think the 'you' is is the person within this body. This person is made up of different thoughts than the 'you' in that body. The thoughts within this body are NOT necessarily right, but just a view obtained from what the body has experienced. These views are expressed in written words in this forum of which the views that are WRONG are hopefully sorted out and brought to the attention of the readers here.

Who do you think 'you' are?
Stop derailing you worthless disgusting schizophrenic delusional piece of shit.
By the way you NEVER clarified the questions I asked you regarding whether light diminishes with supposedly receding stars, as proposed by the "olbers-paradox", which you referred me to, to comprehend, OR, is it a FACT that light does NOT diminish but only spreads out, as you STATED IS THE CASE, as well as me being an idiot for NOT knowing that it is a FACT?

I have asked you which version is True, your version or the "olbers-paradox" version, which you wanted me to comprehend? If you still have NOT yet noticed YOUR VERSION clearly is in contradiction of the OTHER "olber-paradox" VERSION.
I did NOT say such things you idiot.
If you say so, then that is WHAT 'i' AM.

Either way this still does NOT clear up what I have highlighted in regards to your BELIEF that the universe is expanding. Or, is the universe expanding an actual FACT also?
I said no such things either you fucking idiot.

Age
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:19 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:42 pm
You could NOT have misconstrued this, taken it out of context nor got what I said any more WRONG even if you tried. I said:
The "olbers-paradox" from the explanation I just read, to me, says that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

YES I wrote: That to me, 'it' says: ('it' being the so called "olbers-paradox") SAYS that the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because the stars are receding away from the observer as the universe expands.

I did NOT say, and repeat, I DID NOT SAY, that light IS dimmed because the universe is expanding.

If you STILL have NOT seen the difference. I said: the "olbers-paradox" SAYS that the universe is expanding. I did NOT say that the universe is expanding. That is WHAT the "olbers-paradox" SAYS. There is a HUGE difference here, which obviously you did NOT notice, recognize, nor SEE.
No you idiot, the Olbers paradox talks about a static universe, which doesn't expand. An expanding universe is the resolution to the paradox.
And that IS WHAT I SAID. I repeated the resolution of the so called "olbers-paradox". You OBVIOUSLY STILL have NOT understood what I WROTE.

By the way just because that paradox was written, the so called "resolution" of it in NO way infers that that resolution is even remotely close to be correct.

The whole paradox could be based off of an illogical ASSUMPTION in the beginning.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
In case you are STILL unaware I say: From what I have seen I have NOT observed any expansion of the Universe, Itself, as such my VIEW is the Universe is infinite and eternal. Just so it is CLEAR I say: the Universe is NOT expanding nor getting bigger.
Yes you are an idiot, we know since 90 years that the observable universe is "expanding" but you didn't get the memo somehow.
So, is this supposed expansion of the observable universe a fact, which can NOT be refuted?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
This is what I read regarding the "olbers-paradox". SEE if this AGREES with what you are saying here. IF it does NOT, then tell us what is WRONG with this explanation of the "olbers-paradox", and then tell us what it is MEANT TO BE.

The apparent paradox that if stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous. This is not the case because the universe is of finite age, and the light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To me this explanation clearly does NOT say what you are suggesting. To make it CLEAR, for you, you stated:
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, Whereas, the "olbers-paradox" states:
The light from the more distant stars is dimmed because they are receding from the observer as the universe expands.

To make it even SIMPLER for you to CLEAR up for us.
You say: Light does NOT diminish.
Olbers-paradox says: Light IS dimmed.

So, IF light dims but does NOT diminish, then would a 9volt torch shined in your direction been seen by you NO matter what distance it is away from you as it recedes away from you?

If yes, then great.
If no, then even better.

Which one is it?
Yes you idiot NOW we know that the universe is of finite age.
So, you now say that if the light from a 9volt torch was shined in your direction from absolutely ANY distance away you could still see it, because to you light does NOT diminish over distance, correct?

If yes, then I am pretty sure you find some people will say that this is NOT right.
If no, then what did you say?

Also, when 'you' use the 'we' word in, for example, like when you say; "NOW 'we' know that the universe is of finite age", just remember the 'we' does NOT mean for ALL.

For your information only those with very narrow or closed views "know" such a thing.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
Who I think the 'you' is is the person within this body. This person is made up of different thoughts than the 'you' in that body. The thoughts within this body are NOT necessarily right, but just a view obtained from what the body has experienced. These views are expressed in written words in this forum of which the views that are WRONG are hopefully sorted out and brought to the attention of the readers here.

Who do you think 'you' are?
Stop derailing you worthless disgusting schizophrenic delusional piece of shit.
How am I supposedly derailing? By just answering your question, and then by just asking the EXACT SAME question to 'you'?
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
By the way you NEVER clarified the questions I asked you regarding whether light diminishes with supposedly receding stars, as proposed by the "olbers-paradox", which you referred me to, to comprehend, OR, is it a FACT that light does NOT diminish but only spreads out, as you STATED IS THE CASE, as well as me being an idiot for NOT knowing that it is a FACT?

I have asked you which version is True, your version or the "olbers-paradox" version, which you wanted me to comprehend? If you still have NOT yet noticed YOUR VERSION clearly is in contradiction of the OTHER "olber-paradox" VERSION.
I did NOT say such things you idiot.
Did you or did you NOT say: Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, ...?

Also, did you or did you NOT say: Here it's a fact, not a belief, idiot. in regards to light NOT diminishing but rather just spreading out?

Your answers will help clear up just how Honest and OPEN you really are here, in this forum.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:57 pm
If you say so, then that is WHAT 'i' AM.

Either way this still does NOT clear up what I have highlighted in regards to your BELIEF that the universe is expanding. Or, is the universe expanding an actual FACT also?
I said no such things either you fucking idiot.
Okay, then what did you say?

If a part of the Universe can expand, which you say you "know" IS HAPPENING, then can the Universe, Itself, NOT be expanding?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest