Astronomy/Cosmology

[Jasin]

Time stops at faster than the speed of light.
Therefore the universe is NOT expanding 'faster' than the speed of light to do so at an ever accelerating momentum.
Time is stopped. The universe is stopped.
There is no Einstein, scientific and any other proof and evidence beyond the observable universe to say that it hasn't.

I'm right. Einstein has only used 10% of his brain.

[Bobby]

Time stops at faster than the speed of light.
Therefore the universe is NOT expanding 'faster' than the speed of light to do so at an ever accelerating momentum.
Time is stopped. The universe is stopped.
There is no Einstein, scientific and any other proof and evidence beyond the observable universe to say that it hasn't.

I'm right. Einstein has only used 10% of his brain.

Space itself is expanding.
The most distant galaxies are moving away faster than light so we will never see them.

[Jasin]

But didn't Einstein say that anything faster than the speed of light - 'time' stops (as in light can't move faster than the gravity of a black hole to escape).

So such a statement of expansion is surely nothing more than a presumptive illusion?

[Bobby]

But didn't Einstein say that anything faster than the speed of light - 'time' stops (as in light can't move faster than the gravity of a black hole to escape).

So such a statement of expansion is surely nothing more than a presumptive illusion?

When space itself expands over billions of years - Einstein's theory is not quite right.

[Jasin]

I think Science is starting to 'imagine' stuff out there under the guise of 'theories',
much like primitive peoples thought of rainbows as serpents.

If the accelerating acceleration of said universe expansion is indeed happening 'beyond' the observable (evidence) universe - then it must come to the point where it travels 'faster' than the speed of light and thus it must 'stop' as time stops.

I don't think the universe is infinitely expanding and accelerating in that expansion.
I would say that its 'dying' or ceases to exist at all.

[Bobby]

I think Science is starting to 'imagine' stuff out there under the guise of 'theories',
much like primitive peoples thought of rainbows as serpents.

If the accelerating acceleration of said universe expansion is indeed happening 'beyond' the observable (evidence) universe - then it must come to the point where it travels 'faster' than the speed of light and thus it must 'stop' as time stops.

I don't think the universe is infinitely expanding and accelerating in that expansion.
I would say that its 'dying' or ceases to exist at all.

No - anyone living on a planet at the edge of our visible Universe would
say that they are stationary and our galaxy - the Milky Way -
is moving away at close to the speed of light from them.

[Jasin]

There is no 'proof' of expansion.
Because all that is 'seen' out there of galaxies moving towards us and from us - is from the 'past'.

The further you look out and see this 'expansionism' as well - the more you're looking back in time to even 14 billion years at the farthest point of light so far.

Can't you see the contradiction?

[Bobby]

There is no 'proof' of expansion.
Because all that is 'seen' out there of galaxies moving towards us and from us - is from the 'past'.

The further you look out and see this 'expansionism' as well - the more you're looking back in time to even 14 billion years at the farthest point of light so far.

Can't you see the contradiction?

There is proof of expansion - it's called the Red shift.
The spectrum of elements is shifted to the Red end of the spectrum.
It can be seen in the emission and absorption lines of elements.

[Jasin]

I'm not saying the Red Shift doesn't exist as proof - it does prove that that particular galaxy is moving away.
But if that galaxy is moving away from about 10 billion (light) years away, that is 10 billion years ago that galaxy was 'moving away'.
Can you see the distortion of all this?
I don't think Astronomy, Cosmology and all the Physics and Maths have accepted this flaw in their approach because they know its out of their hands currently.
Just like they're now realising that the Big Bang wasn't all that it was cracked up to be and the Universe is not 13 billion years old, but possibly 37 billion years old.
Personally, I think the Universe is in a constant chemical reaction of evolutionary stages.
The fact that life exists on this planet the way it does, shows that the Universe has a long way to go to catch up.

[Bobby]

I'm not saying the Red Shift doesn't exist as proof - it does prove that that particular galaxy is moving away.
But if that galaxy is moving away from about 10 billion (light) years away, that is 10 billion years ago that galaxy was 'moving away'.
Can you see the distortion of all this?
I don't think Astronomy, Cosmology and all the Physics and Maths have accepted this flaw in their approach because they know its out of their hands currently.
Just like they're now realising that the Big Bang wasn't all that it was cracked up to be and the Universe is not 13 billion years old, but possibly 37 billion years old.
Personally, I think the Universe is in a constant chemical reaction of evolutionary stages.
The fact that life exists on this planet the way it does, shows that the Universe has a long way to go to catch up.

No - 10 billion years ago the galaxy would have had a much less apparent velocity.
The space has expanded over that 10 billion years.