On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:02 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
* >>> **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*, > *Actually I don't, and apparently neither does Google. I'm afraid I'm not up-to-date on the latest teenage text messaging slang. At one time I may have known what it meant but my memory capacity is not infinite so it may have been erased to make room for more important information. And speaking of forgetting, **you have forgotten IHA. * *>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, > ,* > *Yes the universe was expanding rapidly but that's not the important thing, the important thing is that it was ACCELERATING rapidly, and nobody knows why, it's probably the biggest unanswered question in physics. The name we have given for whatever mysterious thing is causing that acceleration is "dark energy". We had to call it something and that name is as good as any. * *> and slowed in more recent times,* *About 9 billion years after the Big Bang (5 billion years ago) about the time the solar system started to form, the RATE of acceleration (the technical term for that is "jerk") INCREASED, most think that is because as the volume of the universe increased the density of matter, which wants to slow things down, became diluted, but the density of dark energy, which ones things to move faster, did not become diluted. And it wouldn't become diluted if dark energy was an intrinsic property of space itself. * *>distant galaxies have increasing recessional velocities* > *No! Distant galaxies have increased their redshift, and there is no way recessional velocities can explain that redshift. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropoli <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>s* isr > *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"* > > > 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/CAJPayv3oYY6himNUwzWNX-aKoXNUjL8PCWeqMLkTkYFn%2BPmSkg%40mail.gmail.com.
