Comments on: The Universe is still expanding. As expected.

By: Valjean

Valjean — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:34:52 +0000

It’s strong force within an atom. But, call it what you want…it’s still attraction, large, small, weak, strong. Try thinking beyond the restrictions of current dogma. Many do.

By: Bjoern

Bjoern — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:16:46 +0000

Attraction is called gravity when between large objects…”force” when small,

Thanks for showing that you do _not_ understand the words you use. Attraction between objects with mass is _always_ called gravity, no matter how large or small they are!

By: Valjean

Valjean — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:52:19 +0000

Bjoern. I understand them. Obviously, you don’t, nor do you have any curiosity to try. Attraction is called gravity when between large objects…”force” when small, but large or small, it’s still attraction between two things, and it varies in strength with distance. Think outside current thought.

By: James

James — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:51:33 +0000

82 Neil. I only raise the question because if something starts to expand there is an acceleration involved up to a point of max velocity then a slowing. The figures above seem to show the universe as expanding at a constant Where is the energy coming from to keep the universe expanding at a constant rate. If so, how long was the initial acceleration and when will the expansion slow down? If the speed of light is changing then our calculations would be flawed as the value of megaparsec (3.26 million light years) would be different?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

By: Bjoern

Bjoern — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:57:04 +0000

@Valjean: Nice non-response. Still no evidence for your assertions, still no sign that you try to actually understand the words you use.

By: Valjean

Valjean — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:15:32 +0000

Bjoern. Happy living in the 20th century with its interpretations and conclusions that one day will be “What we used to think”.
-30-

By: Bjoern

Bjoern — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:46:34 +0000

@Valjean:

”Inward”. Heading back to where the expansion started.

That makes little sense – the expansion started essentially at every point of the universe at once.

“Energy frequencies”. Light is an energy frequency, …

Err, no. Light is an electromagnetic wave, which has a frequency, and contains energy. Try learning what the words you use actually mean, please.

“Every possibility should be considered” is a fundamental theme of science …

Since there are essentially infinitely many possibilities, that’s simply impossible.

I suggest a different prism to interpret what we detect…

Well, then show that your suggestions are compatible with all the available data. Good luck.

Does relativity apply in an expanding universe, but not necessarily so in an accelerating universe, or a contracting universe?

There is no reason to think it doesn’t apply, and thousands of reasons to think it does apply. If you have an alternative explanation which fits all the evidence, then show your work, please. Simply saying “but it could be otherwise!!!” doesn’t convince anyone.

Are you saying alternatives should never be considered?

I’m only saying that armchair speculations with no supporting evidence should not be considered. If you have supporting evidence for your suggestions, show it.

It would be a red shift for the light that has been traveling from afar and just now reaching us and we are moving in the same direction it is.

Why should it? Also: what is “moving in the same direction” even supposed to mean? In what direction we move depends on the frame of reference one uses.

The universe could even be pulsing (like a jellyfish) where some portions are contracting while other portions are expanding.

Yes, it could – but the evidence says otherwise.

Waves and particles both have frequencies of impact on whatever they meet.

(1) What is “frequencies of impact” supposed to mean? (2) Particles don’t have frequencies.

Energy frequencies is a useful term in that regard.

No one here understands what you mean when you say “energy frequencies”, but nevertheless you insist that that term is “useful”…?

We give serious consideration to a multi-universe, flapping branes and vibrating miniscule strings with countless dimensions, etc. I see nothing wrong with proposing what I have suggested for consideration rather than summary dismissal.

There are big differences between the things in the first sentence and your suggestions: (1) they are compatible with the available evidence, and (2) they make testable predictions and are not mere armchair speculations.

Attraction is present between things and its strength between any two things varies with distance.

That attraction is commonly called “gravity”, you know…

If the attraction strength variation of an orbiting sub-atomic particle is in the frequency range of light,…

Pardon??? This is really gibberish. What on earth is this supposed to mean?! Again: could you please learn what the words you use actually mean?

By: Neil Haggath

Neil Haggath — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:20:40 +0000

31 and 81 James:
Well, the name of that website to which you link about says it all, doesn’t it??!! “creation.com” – AHEM!!!!!
The entire “c-decay” concept is utter bovine excrement, concocted by a creatard who began with a desired conclusion – that the Universe is 6000 years old – and tried to fabricate data to prove it. That is NOT how science works, is it?????
In fact, the only thing the original author actually “proved” is that the accuracy of our measurements of c has improved over time – which is hardly surprising! He shot himself in the foot right at the start, by mentioning the first ever measurement of c, by Ole Romer in 1675… Romer’s method involved light travel times between planets in the Solar System – which therefore, by definition, was strongly dependent on knowing the distances of the planets from the Sun. Those distances were known at that time, only to an accuracy of +/- 2-3%; therefore, it follows that Romer’s determination of c had an uncertainty of several percent. DUH!!!!!! ( It was, nevertheless, a pretty good effort for 1675! )
In fact, as anyone with any knowledge of the history of astronomy knows, the purpose of the worldwide transit of Venus expeditions in 1761 – 86 years later! – was to refine the measurement of the Sun-Earth distance.
The author also claimed that, after decreasing exponentially, the value of c “became asymptotic sometime around the 1960s”… Er – right!!!!!!! So by some incredible coincidence, it just happened to become asymptotic, at the very time that we became capable of measuring it to one-part-in-a-billion accuracy. Go figure…

By: James

James — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 03:40:22 +0000

Gordon (#35) I did some research and came across this article in which Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys comments:
‘The article on the [CMI] Web site is well balanced.
http://creation.com/speed-of-light-slowing-down-after-all
It also shows others thinking along the same lines and that the standard “big bang” theory has a “horizon problem” which can be solved if the speed of light was fast earlier on and slower now. There are other papers for and against, and I am still open to either, or an alternative!
I would be interested in your thoughts

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:50:03 +0000

If the Universe were contracting, light wavelengths from far stars would be shortened in the same way that light from far stars has it’s wavelength expanded.

I have no idea what you mean by “frequencies of impact”. It makes absolutely no sense in terms of either the particle nature nor the wave nature of the electromagnetic spectrum. Likewise I have no idea what you mean by energy frequencies. Again, it makes no sense in terms of the particle and wave natures of the EM spectrum. There is an energy associated with an EM wave’s frequency, but that doesn’t say that energy has a frequency In fact, under the wave model of EM, the energy incident on an observation plane of a wave of a given frequency is constant. Go ahead and do the calculations to get the energy of an EM wave or field. You’ll find that the you square modulus of the wave functions, as required, the frequency term in the complex exponent goes away. Thus, energy in the light coming from a star doesn’t have a frequency. It could have a modulation frequency if the star’s energy energy output is varying with some frequency.