3 ms·

Such counteract action will make lot of side effects, which can be measured. For example, trajectories of separating or oscillating bodies will be slightly curv

by shpeak 7y ago

Such counteract action will make lot of side effects, which can be measured. For example, trajectories of separating or oscillating bodies will be slightly curved. Do you have any experimental support for this theory?

DavidSJ 7y ago
This isn’t Certhas’s personal theory. It’s part of standard cosmology, called the metric expansion of space. That term should get you pointed in the right direction if you want to learn more about the evidence for it.
- shpeak 7y ago
  It's too complex to explain, I will not understand it. Right?
  - urbanjunkie 7y ago
    Literally Google "metric expansion of space" Dickhead
  - Certhas 7y ago
    It's not, but it might take more work than reading a few HN comments.
Certhas 7y ago
The effect of the expansion of the universe on bound systems is far to small to be observed. Two objects 1 meter apart would move at a speed of 10^-17 m/s. Utterly unobservable. But we know space is expanding by looking at things that are super far away from us and that are not bound.
- shpeak 7y ago
  We can directly measure distance to stars which are near us, using trigonometry and waiting half of year for Earth to make half of distance around Sun. Distance to thousands of stars is already measured with ±5% precision.[0] Yes, it's true that at least some stars, which are near to us, are moving away from us. However, it can be explained in number of ways, without inventing of Bing Bang or other epic events. We cannot measure distance to super far away stars directly. Period. 10^-17 m/s is very high speed. Distance to Moon is 0.385E15 mm, and it can be measured at sub-millimeter accuracy, so this effect can be spotted. However, it will violate Conservation of Energy principle: no force applied, but job is done. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GhsYrU5WQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GhsYrU5WQ
  - Certhas 7y ago
    What's your point? Do you want me to explain the basics of GR and Cosmology, including the vast amounts of evidence we have for everything in HN comments? Do you think you are pointing out subtle errors in reasoning that none of the tens of thousands of physics students since the early twentieth century spotted? You don't have the decency to try to learn the basics but presume to lecture me/expect explanations? Take a course. Show a little humility. Even reading Wikipedia thoroughly would have informed you that it's galaxies, not stars that confirm the expansion of the universe. The expansion (not the acceleration of the expansion) is beyond doubt. Conservation of Energy is not a priory defined for the question at hand because in GR you can not just add the energy at different points in space. Measuring the perturbation to the moon's trajectory from expansion would require knowing all parameters that enter the trajectory to this accuracy, not just the average distance. This is all basic if you want to learn, but you seem to have a different agenda...
    - shpeak 7y ago
      I'm trying to point out, that current evidence can be explained in different way: by kind of Tired Light Theory. TLT plays well with Pilot Wave Theory and it doesn't need epic events in the past just few galactic hours ago. I'm familiar with evidence used by expanding Universe theories and with problems in them. TLT predicts that value of "Speed of expanse" will be different when measured using different methods or frequencies, and it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Measured_values_of_the_Hubble_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Measured_values... . TLT predicts that there is much more stars, but we cannot see them yet because they are too dim, but more powerful telescopes will be able to pickup them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-obs... TTL predicts stars and galaxies older than BB (because of no BB), and they are found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astro... TTL predicts that Cosmic Background Radiation is just radiation of distant objects with Z=1000 . And so on. In short, mainstream theories doesn't hold against new data.
- antman 7y ago
  Any objects? So it's independent of mass?
  - Certhas 7y ago
    Yes, any two bound objects will do so, irrespective of their mass or anything else.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    It's independent of mass because it's just a little extra space being created everywhere all the time. It's not exactly a force. First, there was 1 meter between them. Now there's 1 meter and a tiny bit more. The amount of space being created is, in theory, the same everywhere. It's not a repulsive force- space is just being created. It can actually end up making things very far away appear to move faster than light away from us, since there's a lot of space in between.

by shpeak 7y ago

DavidSJ 7y ago

This isn’t Certhas’s personal theory. It’s part of standard cosmology, called the metric expansion of space. That term should get you pointed in the right direction if you want to learn more about the evidence for it.

shpeak 7y ago
It's too complex to explain, I will not understand it. Right?
- urbanjunkie 7y ago
  Literally Google "metric expansion of space" Dickhead
- Certhas 7y ago
  It's not, but it might take more work than reading a few HN comments.

Certhas 7y ago

The effect of the expansion of the universe on bound systems is far to small to be observed. Two objects 1 meter apart would move at a speed of 10^-17 m/s. Utterly unobservable. But we know space is expanding by looking at things that are super far away from us and that are not bound.

shpeak 7y ago
We can directly measure distance to stars which are near us, using trigonometry and waiting half of year for Earth to make half of distance around Sun. Distance to thousands of stars is already measured with ±5% precision.[0] Yes, it's true that at least some stars, which are near to us, are moving away from us. However, it can be explained in number of ways, without inventing of Bing Bang or other epic events. We cannot measure distance to super far away stars directly. Period. 10^-17 m/s is very high speed. Distance to Moon is 0.385E15 mm, and it can be measured at sub-millimeter accuracy, so this effect can be spotted. However, it will violate Conservation of Energy principle: no force applied, but job is done. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GhsYrU5WQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GhsYrU5WQ
- Certhas 7y ago
  What's your point? Do you want me to explain the basics of GR and Cosmology, including the vast amounts of evidence we have for everything in HN comments? Do you think you are pointing out subtle errors in reasoning that none of the tens of thousands of physics students since the early twentieth century spotted? You don't have the decency to try to learn the basics but presume to lecture me/expect explanations? Take a course. Show a little humility. Even reading Wikipedia thoroughly would have informed you that it's galaxies, not stars that confirm the expansion of the universe. The expansion (not the acceleration of the expansion) is beyond doubt. Conservation of Energy is not a priory defined for the question at hand because in GR you can not just add the energy at different points in space. Measuring the perturbation to the moon's trajectory from expansion would require knowing all parameters that enter the trajectory to this accuracy, not just the average distance. This is all basic if you want to learn, but you seem to have a different agenda...
  - shpeak 7y ago
    I'm trying to point out, that current evidence can be explained in different way: by kind of Tired Light Theory. TLT plays well with Pilot Wave Theory and it doesn't need epic events in the past just few galactic hours ago. I'm familiar with evidence used by expanding Universe theories and with problems in them. TLT predicts that value of "Speed of expanse" will be different when measured using different methods or frequencies, and it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Measured_values_of_the_Hubble_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Measured_values... . TLT predicts that there is much more stars, but we cannot see them yet because they are too dim, but more powerful telescopes will be able to pickup them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-obs... TTL predicts stars and galaxies older than BB (because of no BB), and they are found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astro... TTL predicts that Cosmic Background Radiation is just radiation of distant objects with Z=1000 . And so on. In short, mainstream theories doesn't hold against new data.
antman 7y ago
Any objects? So it's independent of mass?
- Certhas 7y ago
  Yes, any two bound objects will do so, irrespective of their mass or anything else.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  It's independent of mass because it's just a little extra space being created everywhere all the time. It's not exactly a force. First, there was 1 meter between them. Now there's 1 meter and a tiny bit more. The amount of space being created is, in theory, the same everywhere. It's not a repulsive force- space is just being created. It can actually end up making things very far away appear to move faster than light away from us, since there's a lot of space in between.