On Monday, August 4, 2025 at 7:02:03 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2025 at 6:07:52 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 11:12 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> I don't think the Earth is at the center of the universe,* *Well I'm glad of that, at least we don't have to rehash a 482 year old controversy, we only have to rehash a 120 year old controversy. * * > **I think you fail to get the significance of my comment. IIUC,* *You're right, in the context of Big Bang cosmology I don't get the significance of the International Islamic University Chittagong. And you've forgotten IHA.* *Since you know that acronym, what's the value in playing dumb? AG* *> you claim that the red shift observed in light emitted from distant galaxies, tells us the ressional rate of those galaxies NOW.* *NO! I do NOT make that claim as I explained in a post I sent just the day before yesterday:* *See your post dated Jul 23, 2025, 4:44:08 AM, where you seem to make that claim. But since you don't, we can move on. AG* *"If Earth is not the center of the universe then redshift does not indicate a recessional velocity at all, not now nor at any other time, instead redshift is an indicator of how much space has expanded between now and the Big Bang." * *OK, then why does Hubble's Law seem to indicate the universe was expanding rapidly, say around 10 billion years ago indicated by very high red shift, and slowed in more recent times, presumably due to gravity, but the geometric argument shows the opposite; that even if the expansion is uniform, distant galaxies have increasing recessional velocities? TY, AG * *I think I made an error immediately above. Hubble's Law and the geometric argument are not in contradiction with each other. Both indicate, IMO, that the further back in time we look, the faster is the rate of expansion. AG * *Recall, that you claimed the rate of expansion was slow in the very early universe, but since the red shifts are very large, do you agree that the rate of expansion was also large, not small as you previously claimed? AG * *After reading your above statement I stopped reading the rest of your post because after just glancing at it I could see it was littered with the word "now" all written in big capital letters. **And this is a good example of why debating with you is such a frustrating experience. * *Our telescopes measure redshift, and there are only 3 ways an object like a galaxy can produce a redshift :* *1) An enormously powerful gravitational field. * *2) The movement through space of a galaxy away from us. * *3) The expansion of space itself. * *It can't be #1 because if galaxies had gravitational fields that strong we would see billions of times more gravitational lensing than we do. * *Assuming Galileo was right and the Earth is not the center of the universe then it can't be #2, because if it was we'd expect to find an equal number of redshifted and blueshifted galaxies, but that's not what we see. And we'd expect to find no relationship between the amount of shifting of spectral lines and the distance to a Galaxy, but we do find such a relationship. And from the study of nearby galaxies we have a good understanding of how fast galaxies are moving through space relative to each other, and that speed is far far too slow to explain the huge redshifting that we observe. * *So if it can't be #1 or #2 it must be #3. As Sherlock Holmes said: * *"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropoli <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>s* shq -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3188d250-6e45-4aec-9586-d3a5e46cc8d7n%40googlegroups.com.
