• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/376343/time-dilation-due-to-space-expansion

From the physicist on this link:

"There is no reason to expect cosmological Doppler shifts to be analyzable into factors like the ones you used for your argument for the longitudinal Doppler shifts in SR. Actually GR doesn't have a way to define the relative velocities of distant objects, so there would be no way to define a β. When people talk about cosmological expansion in terms of the velocities of distant objects relative to us, that's just a popularized explanation."

They just continue to underestimate its effects because they are using c as the parameter, when the expansion began faster than c and has continued to increase.... They do so because they don't understand why c is always c regardless of velocity.

I really don't know where you get this. The expansion did NOT start 'faster than c'. During the inflationary epoch, it *was* faster than c', but it was slower both before and after that epoch. In particular, the rate of expansion was *decreasing* until about 5 billion years ago, when it started to increase again.


Absolute Loentz Transformation. Right. OK.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Each is at rest *in its own frame*, but those frames are moving with respect to each other. In particular, frames ay widely separated points appear to be in relativistic motion with respect to each other.
Because they are....


I know, that's why you confuse it as being able to call it a rest frame despite its continued acceleration....



No, during the inflationary time period, the expansion was exponential. Afterwards, it went to a *deceleration* until dark energy started to dominate the density, at which point it started to accelerate again.

If you want a good reference, I can provide several.
Please do, because each and every ione will agree with me...

Here is wiki for a layman's interpretation which you all apparently need.. I'll bold the part you should pay special attention to.

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

"During the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so."

It NEVER STOPPED EXPANDING, it just continued to expand at a lesser rate of expansion. The difference is a spacecraft accelerating at 10 G, then slowing its acceleration to 5 G. Yet at no time did its velocity thorough space decrease from its original gained speed. It continued at all times to increase in velocity, just at a lesser rate than before....


Galaxies are not exactly in the balanced reference frame for expansion, but the peculiar motion tends to be small. The dominant effect is from the expansion of space, not galaxies moving with respect to the frame locally at rest with respect to the expansion.
You are at rest relative to the local frame of the spacecraft that is accelerating, yet the spacecraft and you still gain the energy due to its acceleration....

You are at rest to the frame locally when falling at 9.8 meters per second per second in freefall, yet you gain the energy due to your acceleration despite being at rest relative to the force of gravity causing the acceleration.

Overall, the distribution of mass in the universe at the large scale is close to uniform. At slightly smaller scales, it looks more like a swiss cheese. That *does* cause a curvature in spacetime and this is directly linked to the rate of universal expansion.
I never said relativity should not be applied within our local system.... But then that is why a theory known to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system can not be applied outside of it without adding 96% ad-hoc theory. Theory not needed where we understand it has indeed been tested to a 99.8% accuracy..... Because you keep trying to sledgehammer it to where it does not apply, hence that space is continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate beside being made of Swiss cheese.....


Again, I can give you some good references if you want. Dodelson's book 'Modern Cosmology' is a good start. Weinberg's book 'Cosmology' is a deeper treatment. Both are reasonably up to date. Peebles book is good, but with the discovery of dark energy is pretty badly out of date.
Both have no laboratory evidence to back up their assumptions....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
First, do you agree that special relativity isn't the correct description to be using when discussing the expanding universe? That general relativity is the description to us?
Says those who keep trying to sledgehammer a theory shown to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system, but needs 96% ad-hoc theory outside it. Even if it needed none of it where it was tested to that 99.8% accuracy. Perhaps that should have given them a clue. Then do we need to mention that SR is valid in high velocity situations in which the effect of gravity can be discounted. And since space only does not expand in the presence of gravity (tiny little specks of dust in the universe - galaxies) we can basically disregard it. But then that's why you need 96% ad-hoc theory added to it, you keep trying to apply it to situations in which it doesn't apply....

Second, given the solutions to the equations of general relativity, what is the time dilation between distant galaxies and our own?
Irrelevant, it is only 99.8% accurate within our solar system....

Third, what is the red shift for light moving between distant galaxies and our own?

Fourth, can this red shift be considered a doppler shift?
I'm not the one insisting we use Hubble's Law which is a doppler shift to calculate cosmological redshift ..... That's your "experts" that insist on that and then try to tell you its not really doppler we just require doppler calculations.....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because they are....



I know, that's why you confuse it as being able to call it a rest frame despite its continued acceleration....




Please do, because each and every ione will agree with me...

Here is wiki for a layman's interpretation which you all apparently need.. I'll bold the part you should pay special attention to.

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

"During the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so."

It NEVER STOPPED EXPANDING, it just continued to expand at a lesser rate of expansion. The difference is a spacecraft accelerating at 10 G, then slowing its acceleration to 5 G. Yet at no time did its velocity thorough space decrease from its original gained speed. It continued at all times to increase in velocity, just at a lesser rate than before....

I did not say the expansion stopped. I said the *rate* of expansion (the acceleration) decreased. The universe was still expanding, but the rate of expansion was decreasing until recently.



You are at rest relative to the local frame of the spacecraft that is accelerating, yet the spacecraft and you still gain the energy due to its acceleration....

An accelerating spacecraft is not an inertial frame.

You are at rest to the frame locally when falling at 9.8 meters per second per second in freefall, yet you gain the energy due to your acceleration despite being at rest relative to the force of gravity causing the acceleration.


I never said relativity should not be applied within our local system.... But then that is why a theory known to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system can not be applied outside of it without adding 96% ad-hoc theory. Theory not needed where we understand it has indeed been tested to a 99.8% accuracy..... Because you keep trying to sledgehammer it to where it does not apply, hence that space is continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate beside being made of Swiss cheese.....

SR is not used because GR is the more appropriate description and is more inclusive than SR. In particular, GR is used for descriptions of the expanding universe.

Both have no laboratory evidence to back up their assumptions....

:facepalm: They are simply applying GR to the universe as a whole. They have all the lab evidence supporting GR and all the observational evidence from cosmology.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
From the physicist on this link:

"There is no reason to expect cosmological Doppler shifts to be analyzable into factors like the ones you used for your argument for the longitudinal Doppler shifts in SR. Actually GR doesn't have a way to define the relative velocities of distant objects, so there would be no way to define a β. When people talk about cosmological expansion in terms of the velocities of distant objects relative to us, that's just a popularized explanation."
And yet GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy within the solar system and needs 96% ad-hoc theory added to it the second you go beyond its boundries... Ad-hoc theory not need where it has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy. So I suggest you contemplate on this for awhile and decide where it is actually viable....


I really don't know where you get this. The expansion did NOT start 'faster than c'. During the inflationary epoch, it *was* faster than c', but it was slower both before and after that epoch. In particular, the rate of expansion was *decreasing* until about 5 billion years ago, when it started to increase again.
See above, I already answered that and like a spacecraft accelerating at 10 G that then slows its acceleration to 5 G, at no time did its velocity through space decrease but only continued to increase. It's an argument you can't win so why are you continuing with your incorrect rants?


Absolute Loentz Transformation. Right. OK.
Funny, they seem to work just fine when we apply them as absolute transformations.... right here on this earth in this frame where GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy yet fails miserably in every other place it is applied.....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Says those who keep trying to sledgehammer a theory shown to be 99.8% correct inside the solar system, but needs 96% ad-hoc theory outside it. Even if it needed none of it where it was tested to that 99.8% accuracy. Perhaps that should have given them a clue. Then do we need to mention that SR is valid in high velocity situations in which the effect of gravity can be discounted. And since space only does not expand in the presence of gravity (tiny little specks of dust in the universe - galaxies) we can basically disregard it. But then that's why you need 96% ad-hoc theory added to it, you keep trying to apply it to situations in which it doesn't apply....


Irrelevant, it is only 99.8% accurate within our solar system....


I'm not the one insisting we use Hubble's Law which is a doppler shift to calculate cosmological redshift ..... That's your "experts" that insist on that and then try to tell you its not really doppler we just require doppler calculations.....

Actually, the experts say we should use the RW metric to do the computations. That is the solution to the GR equations. And yes, when the GR description of gravity is applied to the universe as a whole, we *do* get universal expansion as a solution. That is the Big Bang description, by the way.

And yes, GR applies within our solar system and is an improvement of the SR results. It *generalizes* SR to include gravity.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
And yet GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy within the solar system and needs 96% ad-hoc theory added to it the second you go beyond its boundries... Ad-hoc theory not need where it has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy. So I suggest you contemplate on this for awhile and decide where it is actually viable....

See above, I already answered that and like a spacecraft accelerating at 10 G that then slows its acceleration to 5 G, at no time did its velocity through space decrease but only continued to increase. It's an argument you can't win so why are you continuing with your incorrect rants?

Funny, they seem to work just fine when we apply them as absolute transformations.... right here on this earth in this frame where GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy yet fails miserably in every other place it is applied.....


All I can say is that you really should take a few physics classes. You seem to be confused about the difference between the expansion rate and the acceleration of that expansion. You seem to be confused about when to use SR and when to use GR. And you seem to be confused about which theory to use for an expanding universe.

Now, I don't know your level of mathematical sophistication, but it certainly woudn't hurt for you to learn a bit of differential geometry so you can actually understand what GR says and its connection to SR.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
I did not say the expansion stopped. I said the *rate* of expansion (the acceleration) decreased. The universe was still expanding, but the rate of expansion was decreasing until recently.
Which at no time caused a decrease in velocity, just the rate it accelerated.....

In simple words, at no time did the decrease in acceleration ever cause the object to slow down, just the rate the object gained more velocity.....

For its velocity through space to slow, the acceleration would need to stop and reverse in direction....




An accelerating spacecraft is not an inertial frame.
Neither are we, such is why we have pseudo forces....


SR is not used because GR is the more appropriate description and is more inclusive than SR. In particular, GR is used for descriptions of the expanding universe.
Sure, as long as you continue to ignore that GR has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy here in the solar system without any other ad-hoc theory and the second you go beyond its confines you disregard that previous accuracy and add 96% ad-hoc theory to it.... I totally accept it's accuracy, but unlike you I am willing to accept the fact it doesn't apply when gravity is negligible and speeds are great. Hence you need 96% ad-hoc theory as a rescue device.....


:facepalm: They are simply applying GR to the universe as a whole. They have all the lab evidence supporting GR and all the observational evidence from cosmology.
yes they do, right here in this system where it is 99.8% accurate.

Observational evidence in which it didn't work until they add 96% ad-hoc theory to it not needed where it was tested with those laboratory experiments????? So why are you ignoring those laboratory and observational evidences and insisting it applies anyways?????
 
Last edited:

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Actually, the experts say we should use the RW metric to do the computations. That is the solution to the GR equations. And yes, when the GR description of gravity is applied to the universe as a whole, we *do* get universal expansion as a solution. That is the Big Bang description, by the way.

And yes, GR applies within our solar system and is an improvement of the SR results. It *generalizes* SR to include gravity.
Which gravity is irrelevant since it is gravity which prevents expansion, not causes it.... But that's why you keep avoiding the fact that it is 99.8% accurate inside the solar system where it needs no ad-hoc theory and once into the vast reaches of space suddenly needs 96% ad-hoc theory. Because expansion is not subject to the force of gravity due it being so pitifully weak except where the mass is great enough to overcome the expansion. Where expansion exists the force of gravity can be neglected and is.....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
See above, I already answered that and like a spacecraft accelerating at 10 G that then slows its acceleration to 5 G, at no time did its velocity through space decrease but only continued to increase. It's an argument you can't win so why are you continuing with your incorrect rants?

But that ISN'T what happened in the universe. The expansion rate decreased for a while (the acceleration was negative), even though the expansion rate was still positive.

In your spacecraft analogy, this is similar to going from an acceleration of 10G to a *deceleration* of 5G while still moving forward. The universe continued to expand, but the rate was decreasing.

First derivative positive, second derivative negative. Now, the second derivative is positive again.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Which at no time caused a decrease in acceleration, just the rate it accelerated.....

The universe went from accelerating expansion, to decelerating expansion, to accelerating expansion, while always expanding.

That is a decrease in the acceleration, then an increase.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Which gravity is irrelevant since it is gravity which prevents expansion, not causes it....
Except for when there is a cosmological constant (dark energy) which supplies a pressure outward proportional to the density.

But that's why you keep avoiding the fact that it is 99.8% accurate inside the solar system where it needs no ad-hoc theory and once into the vast reaches of space suddenly needs 96% ad-hoc theory. Because expansion is not subject to the force of gravity due it being so pitifully weak except where the mass is great enough to overcome the expansion. Where expansion exists the force of gravity can be neglected and is.....

Um, no. Gravity cannot be neglected. The differences between SR and GR are crucial for discussions of cosmology.

I am assuming you are referring to dark matter and dark energy as being the 'ad hoc' additions. But both are supported on other evidentiary grounds, including the fluctuations in the background radiation.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
But that ISN'T what happened in the universe. The expansion rate decreased for a while (the acceleration was negative), even though the expansion rate was still positive.
Oh please, if it was still positive that means at no time did the objects velocity through space decrease, just the rate at which the object continued to gain velocity.....

In your spacecraft analogy, this is similar to going from an acceleration of 10G to a *deceleration* of 5G while still moving forward. The universe continued to expand, but the rate was decreasing.
You clearly fail to understand. The Velocity never decreased, just the rate of the expansion. Thius would instead be like a spacecraft acclelerating at 10 G then continuing to accelerate at 5G, its velocity at no time decreased, just the rate it gained velocity.....

I guess we need to go back to the description you continue to ignore.....


Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

"During the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so."

Do you comprehend what "a much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this" actually means? it means the spacecraft went from accelerating at 10G to accelerating at 5G, It at no time means the spacecraft began deceleration...... It continued at ALL times to continue to accelerate, just at a smaller value than it did initially....

Your explanation fails to match any description given of the initial conditions.....

it is quite clear at this point you do not even understand the theory you claim to understand....
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
Except for when there is a cosmological constant (dark energy) which supplies a pressure outward proportional to the density.
in which case gravity can be neglected.... I agree....


Um, no. Gravity cannot be neglected. The differences between SR and GR are crucial for discussions of cosmology.

I am assuming you are referring to dark matter and dark energy as being the 'ad hoc' additions. But both are supported on other evidentiary grounds, including the fluctuations in the background radiation.
What background radiation?

Ahh you mean the radiation that shows blue shift despite nothing beyond our local cluster showing any blue shift due to our motion because of the expansion of space??????

I suggest you are simply confused as to the source of the radiation and its proximity to us, since expansion systematically shifts all forms of radiation to the red end of the spectrum, except within our local cluster where expansion does not apply..... Yet this radiation since if before the first galaxies would need to cross the entire expansion of space. So are you now claiming only this radiation is immune from the effects of expansion or are you throwing out expansion causing redshift of all sources of radiation beyond our local cluster?????

Now we are getting into the ad-hoc theory...... I wondered how long that would take in an effort to try to justify your incorrect views.....
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh please, if it was still positive that means at no time did the objects velocity through space decrease, just the rate at which the object continued to gain velocity.....

No, that is wrong. The velocity decreased for a while. The acceleration was negative. But the velocity itself was positive (but still decreasing).

You clearly fail to understand. The Velocity never decreased, just the rate of the expansion. Thius would instead be like a spacecraft acclelerating at 10 G then continuing to accelerate at 5G, its velocity at no time decreased, just the rate it gained velocity.....

I guess we need to go back to the description you continue to ignore.....

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

"During the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so."

Yes, this is correct.

Do you comprehend what "a much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this" actually means? it means the spacecraft went from accelerating at 10G to accelerating at 5G, It at no time means the spacecraft began deceleration...... It continued at ALL times to continue to accelerate, just at a smaller value than it did initially....

No, that is NOT what it means. It means it went from accelerating with some positive velocity (say, 10G acceleration with velocity 1000km/sec), to decelerating with a positive velocity (5G deceleration with velocity 200 km/sec). The rate of expansion (the velocity) was smaller. The expansion was decelerating. later, the velocity continued to be positive and the acceleration became positive again, so the velocity started to increase.

You are consistently confusing the velocity of expansion (the expansion rate) and the acceleration, which is how fast the rate is changing. The velocity was positive (continued expansion). The acceleration was negative (decreasing velocity).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
in which case gravity can be neglected.... I agree....

No, it cannot. The gravity has effects on the overall expansion. The contribution of the cosmological constant is only one term.

What background radiation?

The comic microwave background radiation. You know, the Planck distribution radiation at 2.7 degrees K that comes from all across the sky?

Ahh you mean the radiation that shows blue shift despite nothing beyond our local cluster showing any blue shift due to our motion because of the expansion of space??????

Um, no. The CMBR does NOT show a blue shift. it is a red-shifted thermal radiation from the time of decoupling of radiation and matter about 380,000 years after the start of the expansion.

I suggest you are simply confused as to the source of the radiation and its proximity to us, since expansion systematically shifts all forms of radiation to the red end of the spectrum, except within our local cluster where expansion does not apply..... Yet this radiation since if before the first galaxies would need to cross the entire expansion of space. So are you now claiming only this radiation is immune from the effects of expansion or are you throwing out expansion causing redshift of all sources of radiation beyond our local cluster?????

The CMBR is red shifted. In fact, the red shift factor is about z=1100. This compares to much less than one for nearby galaxies and z=5 for very distant ones.

Now we are getting into the ad-hoc theory...... I wondered how long that would take in an effort to try to justify your incorrect views.....

You need to study up a bit before you go criticizing the views of others.
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
No, it cannot. The gravity has effects on the overall expansion. The contribution of the cosmological constant is only one term.
And yet despite gravity it is continuing to increase in acceleration because the force of gravity is completely and totally negligible......


The comic microwave background radiation. You know, the Planck distribution radiation at 2.7 degrees K that comes from all across the sky?
Oh, you think i don't accept that we detect radiation???? I'm just not foolish enough to accept it comes from before the first light of galaxies and has blue shift despite cosmological expansion systematically shifting all radiation beyond our local cluster to the red end of the spectrum. I agree you mistake it's source, not that the radiation is not present....


Um, no. The CMBR does NOT show a blue shift. it is a red-shifted thermal radiation from the time of decoupling of radiation and matter about 380,000 years after the start of the expansion.
Who you trying to convince with that misinformation, yourself???

Cosmology, Inflation, and the Physics of Nothing - W.H. Kinney


The CMBR is red shifted. In fact, the red shift factor is about z=1100. This compares to much less than one for nearby galaxies and z=5 for very distant ones.
And yet no other source of radiation in any direction shows a dipole due to our motion.....


You need to study up a bit before you go criticizing the views of others.
Or those that believe there is no dipole due to our motion need to? I agree one of us has the wrong view......
 

Justatruthseeker

Active Member
No, that is wrong. The velocity decreased for a while. The acceleration was negative. But the velocity itself was positive (but still decreasing).



Yes, this is correct.



No, that is NOT what it means. It means it went from accelerating with some positive velocity (say, 10G acceleration with velocity 1000km/sec), to decelerating with a positive velocity (5G deceleration with velocity 200 km/sec). The rate of expansion (the velocity) was smaller. The expansion was decelerating. later, the velocity continued to be positive and the acceleration became positive again, so the velocity started to increase.

You are consistently confusing the velocity of expansion (the expansion rate) and the acceleration, which is how fast the rate is changing. The velocity was positive (continued expansion). The acceleration was negative (decreasing velocity).
It was all correct. A much slower and gradual expansion continued. I.e the acceleration rate simply decreased, not its velocity through space. It in no way says or implies that the acceleration reversed or that the velocity through space decreased.

This is simply your flawed understanding... The velocity was positive as you agree, it at no time decreased, it simply increased at a smaller and more gradual rate than before. It "continued" to expand, just at a smaller rate than the initial expansion... "A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this" It does not say the acceleration reversed or that the velocity decreased, but that the expansion simply continued at a slower and more gradual rate than it did before.

In other words it went from an increasing rate of 10G with a velocity of 1000km/sec which increased rapidly, to a more gradual increase of 5G which continued to increase the velocity above 1000km/sec. Apparently you are confused about the term continued in relation to a slower and more gradual increase..... It did not reverse, it did not slow down, it simply continued to gain velocity at a smaller rate than before.....

Please provide your link which states the acceleration reversed...... I expect no such link to be forthcoming..... Instead ALL will agree that the expansion continued, just at a lesser rate of acceleration, not a reverse acceleration... And if an acceleration continues, even at a lesser rate, velocity continues to increase....

I'll restate: it is your lack of understanding why c remains c regardless of velocity that leads ultimately to your need to add Ad-hoc conditions....
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It was all correct. A much slower and gradual expansion continued. I.e the acceleration rate simply decreased, not its velocity through space. It in no way says or implies that the acceleration reversed or that the velocity through space decreased.

This is simply your flawed understanding... The velocity was positive as you agree, it at no time decreased, it simply increased at a smaller and more gradual rate than before. It "continued" to expand, just at a smaller rate than the initial expansion... "A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this" It does not say the acceleration reversed or that the velocity decreased, but that the expansion simply continued at a slower and more gradual rate than it did before.

Actually, that is *exactly* what it says. The expansion was *slower*. That means a smaller velocity. The velocity was still positive, but smaller than it was.

In other words it went from an increasing rate of 10G with a velocity of 1000km/sec which increased rapidly, to a more gradual increase of 5G which continued to increase the velocity above 1000km/sec. Apparently you are confused about the term continued in relation to a slower and more gradual increase..... It did not reverse, it did not slow down, it simply continued to gain velocity at a smaller rate than before.....

There is a difference between the expansion *reversing* (velocity goes negative) and the expansion *slowing* (velocity is positive, but acceleration goes negative).

Please provide your link which states the acceleration reversed...... I expect no such link to be forthcoming..... Instead ALL will agree that the expansion continued, just at a lesser rate of acceleration, not a reverse acceleration... And if an acceleration continues, even at a lesser rate, velocity continues to increase....

What you quoted above *exactly* says that the acceleration reversed: the velocity *slowed*, which means the acceleration was negative. The velocity was still positive (the universe continued to expand), but it was a *slower* expansion (smaller velocity).

I'll restate: it is your lack of understanding why c remains c regardless of velocity that leads ultimately to your need to add Ad-hoc conditions....

Huh? That has nothing to do with this. That is just simple relativity.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is simply your flawed understanding... The velocity was positive as you agree, it at no time decreased, it simply increased at a smaller and more gradual rate than before. It "continued" to expand, just at a smaller rate than the initial expansion... "A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this" It does not say the acceleration reversed or that the velocity decreased, but that the expansion simply continued at a slower and more gradual rate than it did before.

This is incredible, you're trying to lecture people about relativity when you can't even grasp the relationship between acceleration and velocity!
 
Top