This conversation is closed.

Science claims the universe is expanding

What evidence does science have, that explains such, said the spider to the fly. :-)

  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: Who, or what, is "science" in your context? You could mean anyone with an advanced degree in this, or an associated, subject of study. But it seems unlikely that any one individual could speak for all such persons. You could mean certain associations, universities, or government and private research facilities, but, again, it seems unlikely that one organization, or association, could speak for all members of the profession. If I declared, "Medicine says daily aspirin is greatly beneficial and free of harmful effects." I would be wrong because many in the medical profession do not believe that to be true. Your question seems to imply a unanimity in the scientific community. Such is not the case.
    • Apr 2 2013: Good thinking and reply Edward. You are correct. Thank you!
  • Apr 16 2013: The problem is that 999/1000 of people dont think for themselves. They just follow the herd..
    I would like to see a reply to my previous post from a physicist who disagrees with me (if he can)
    • Apr 16 2013: I know right, the media makes these claims and the scientists never have to answer for their claims, by people that can think for themselves and confront them with the hard questions. Its the same with lawyers, the courts protect them from their own copy and paste existence, while they call thinkers fools for wanting to represent themselves, with the judges not allowing whatever they don't want.

      If people are honest with themselves, they will see that schools never teach the kids or college grads to think for themselves.
  • Apr 15 2013: The hypothesis of Cosmic Expansion stems from the observation of Hubble redshift. The shift is a lowering of expected frequency in the emissions of very distant stars. The hypothesis assumes that distance expands over Time but the rate of passage of time stays constant. This assumption cannot be made. It could equally be that distance remains constant and the rate of time changes. We can only say the ratio of distance to time changes, ie. the speed of light changes. Thus we cannot say that Cosmic Expansion occurs.
    • Apr 15 2013: That's a big change from what science was claiming. When did that happen and why the change, did science all of a sudden find something other than assumptions? I've been fighting the ignorance of so much assumption, in so many things, like light theory, gravitational lensing and so much more. All this assumption is due strictly to evolution. This ignorance is spreading like wildfire and children are being taught that science and grants can be based on guessing, as long as it favors evolution.

      Light breaks up far too easily to make it any distance through space, making gravitational lensing equally impossible. Look to the moon test of light theory. Only single photons made it back and as everything is moving, I think those doing the collecting were using wishful thinking.

      How fast is earth moving in two ways and how fast is our galaxy moving?

      I am very disappointed in science.

      Thanks for your reply Reg.
    • Apr 15 2013: Apologies for coming across so strong, but if you look down this thread, you see these people making claims opposite yours. Most all those that do, believe in evolution. They use one hypothesis to claim another hypothesis is evidence for the first, vice versa and then those for others and others for those.

      These people have so much faith that what science says is right, but they refuse to look at the subjects objectively. They are positive and nothing will change their minds.

      However, schools don't teach children or college grads how to think for themselves. They simply do as they are told. One would think that brainwashing should be outlawed.
  • Apr 4 2013: I have a question I hope someone can clarify
    The galaxy MACS0647-JD is about 13.3 billion light-years away according to red sift measurements
    The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy was 13.3 billion light-years away when the universe was 400 million years old .
    The Big Bang emanated from a singularity so the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and increasing is this correct ?
    Thanks for any replies
    • Apr 4 2013: By what you write, you believe in evolution. I wouldn't have anything to offer people that are convinced.
  • thumb
    Apr 4 2013: The Red Shift (i.e. Doppler effect)

    If you understand anything about waves and light (and sometimes sound) then you'd understand the claims about the universe expanding
    • Apr 4 2013: If you can refute what I've written, you should have already done so. If you had a point to make, you would have already made it.

      • thumb
        Apr 4 2013: Umm ok,

        I don't like to spill all my beans at once but your comments are perplexing. I just gave you one possible way that scientist know that the universe is expanding. It is not simply an assertion, its a fact.

        So I can only wonder what answer are you looking for? Should I say that the hand of God is pushing the galaxies farther and farther away from one another? Would that be a sufficient answer for you?
        • Apr 4 2013: That's why they call it a theory and not a fact. You however claim it to be fact. Try telling someone else.
  • thumb
    Apr 4 2013: If we accept that the red-shift observed in the light from other galaxies is evidence that those galaxies are receding from us (It's fairly safe to do so as red-shift is used in other areas such as identifying binary stars successfully), then the evidence suggests that almost all observable objects are getting further away. If you have a group of objects that are all getting further away from each other then the group as a whole must be gradually taking up more space ie expanding. The caveat is however that this theory and observation suggests the observable universe is expanding. We can't apply this to things we are as yet unaware of.
    They must be fairly confident. They don't name space telescopes after just anybody.
    • Apr 4 2013: Congress and local governments christen whomever they choose, while they stand in the open taking bribes, to keep their jobs and enrichen themselves, while destroying the moral fabric of this nation. Gosh, they named a telescope after someone. So as andromeda is in blue shift, that means nothing to you?

      So tell us, can this telescope see to all that is out there? What if most that science sees is in red shift, what if all not seen is blue shift?
    • Apr 4 2013: "If we accept that the red-shift observed in the light from other galaxies is evidence that those galaxies are receding from us ..."

      I have often wondered about this. Considering how little we actually know about intergalactic space, it seems to me that cosmologists are making a big assumption, that the entire red shift is due to the speed of the receding galaxies. To the best of my knowledge, every bit of data regarding the behavior of electromagnetic radiation has been gathered from within the solar system. To me, it seems completely plausible that the red shift could be due (perhaps only in part) to some other natural attribute of intergalactic space which we have no way of being aware of, until we send something out there.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2013: Red shift observations have been used to measure other movements such as relative velocities of binary stars or even the rotational velocity of a single star. As a technique it has proven reliable in several different situations. Even if other unknown factors contribute that wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of large scale structures are moving away from us.
  • Comment deleted

    • Apr 3 2013: Then by all means, please post the names of the scientists that don't agree with the Big Bang, other than religious scientists.

      Thank you.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 3 2013: So you think I'm a mind reader? Now that's funny. Mr. Sheldrake does talk about that.
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 3 2013: Nope, women are still a mystery to me, even after 3 marriages. Don't have a clue about you. Got any hints? :-)
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 3 2013: Nah, definitely not that smart.
  • Apr 2 2013: I don't think you would consider this scientific evidence, but here it is:

    Everyone my age agrees that the floor gets farther away every year.
    • Apr 2 2013: Lol, I'm 60 and I fully agree.
  • thumb
    Apr 2 2013: Hi, Jim. As a science writer (am I remembering this correctly), you probably know where to find the most reliable sources for a question like this.

    Here is one link from the Astronomy department at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles).

    I also notice that in the Wikipedia article on Metric Expansion of Space, there is a section called Observational Evidence. At the end of the article, there will be references to sources that should be reliable and in which the material can be verified independently.

    We have one young man who has participated sometimes in Conversations who has his doctorate in Astronomy/Cosmology. I hope he arrives with an expert explanation for you!
    • Apr 2 2013: Thanks Fritzie, I look forward to your friends response. I've read quite a bit about universal expansion, but I like debate, based on another's thoughts, not just the days copy and paste. Copy and paste do play an important Parton starting a debate, but that's all. All some people offer is copy and paste and you know that's not debate. There has always been a flat earth society and there always will be, as you surely know. Even though I've read much about universe expansion, its always been supposition from all I see. I'll read what you offer and thank you. Red shift, blue shift?
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2013: Hi, Jim. Not a friend of mine- only someone I have noticed now and then, though he seldom comments on physics questions here.
        I thought on a question of fact, like "what is the evidence for," it was as well to start with what scientists themselves have offered.
        • Apr 2 2013: Fritzie. I see most all scientists as I see most all lawyers. They understand the concept and motions, but only a tiny few can argue from their own perspective. Many can make assumptions, but only a tiny few can offer real debate. The media hypes lawyers and scientists, so that the supermajority dare not question them or if they do, they are seen as fools. Most all lawyers are cubicle smart and the same is true for scientists. They offer nothing from their own minds. I have written many new things never before mentioned, IE;

          The science of running by Jim Ryan.

          Yes, I used to run 10 miles a day for about 2 years. For whatever reason, I started counting a cadence in my head, that matched the cadence of my footfalls and my breathing, which synced body and mind, helping me to get into a trance like state, allowing me to run mile after mile without stress and the last mile I could run almost flat out.

          I know they teach different things today, but give my method a try, I think you'll like it. By the way, keep your eyes focused just in front of you, on the ground.

          The cadence in running I used to use was, "one two three one", " one two three two", "one two three three", and keep going.

          It's a 4 count breathing in and then a 4 count breathing out.

          Happy running.
        • Apr 2 2013: Here's another work of mine.

          Testing spin on bacteria

          Another thought.

          More science by Jim Ryan


          Ya know how we get dizzy and sometimes get sick by spinning around, well, do the cells in our bodies spin at the same rate that the earth is spinning and that's why we don't get sick, until we upset that delicate balance, by the least amount of extra spin? The earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.

          What if science gave extra spin to more creatures, great and small, even bacteria, would bacteria incorporate something else to deal with the extra spin? Could scientists see any differences under a scope, after spinning?

          What could science offer bacteria to deal with the extra spin?

          Another thought

          I think we've all seen schools of fish swimming in circles, surely that has something to teach about spin.

          Are there other entities that move in circles on purpose, besides astronauts and race car drivers?
        • Apr 2 2013: Fritzie, I added more to my spin theory above.
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2013: My running days are behind me, I fear! And my experience of scientists, given those I know or have read, is very different.from your view. I am accustomed, rather, to a zany playfulness with ideas.

        Of course, personalities and dispositions among people in any group will show variety.

        Enjoy your investigations!