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

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

That is not what it says. The expansion was slower, hence the acceleration was less, not the velocity, it was at no time negative which would be required to slow the velocity.... It does NOT mean a slower velocity, it simply means the rate of increase of the velocity term was less than it was before..... hence the expansion of the universe continued to accelerate, just at a smaller value and the velocity continued to increase, just at a lesser 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, it doesn't tell you that the acceleration was negative, it told you it continued, just at a smaller rate than before.....

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).

It doesn't say that at all. it told you the expansion (acceleration of the universe) continued to increase, just at a smaller rate of increase than previously..... And as predicted, no citations showing a reverse in acceleration.....

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

lol, keep telling yourself this because you have no explanation for why c remains c regardless of velocity, even if all of relativity is predicated upon the fact that light always travels at c in all frames regardless of velocity......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

I understand it just fine... What part of increasing acceleration meaning an increasing velocity do you fail to understand????? What part of an increasing velocity causing time dilation do you also fail to understand?????

What part of an acceleration being less than before but continuing causing a continuing increase in velocity simply at a smaller rate do you all not understand?????

I assert it is not my understanding here which is in question.....

 

[Polymath257]

That is not what it says. The expansion was slower, hence the acceleration was less, not the velocity, it was at no time negative which would be required to slow the velocity.... It does NOT mean a slower velocity, it simply means the rate of increase of the velocity term was less than it was before..... hence the expansion of the universe continued to accelerate, just at a smaller value and the velocity continued to increase, just at a lesser rate than before....

Simply wrong. Slower means *velocity* smaller, not acceleration smaller.

If you are going down the road at 50mph, and you slow to 40mph, you are going slower. But your velocity is smaller and your acceleration was negative.

If, instead, your acceleration was positive, but smaller, your speed would be continuing to increase, making you go *faster*, not *slower*

please, it doesn't tell you that the acceleration was negative, it told you it continued, just at a smaller rate than before.....

No, the expansion was slower. That is a *velocity* not an *acceleration*.

It doesn't say that at all. it told you the expansion (acceleration of the universe) continued to increase, just at a smaller rate of increase than previously..... And as predicted, no citations showing a reverse in acceleration.....

The rate of expansion is the *velocity*, not the *acceleration*.

You need to get these basics sorted out before you go any further. The rate of expansion is a *velocity*, not an *acceleration*.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand it just fine... What part of increasing acceleration meaning an increasing velocity do you fail to understand????? What part of an increasing velocity causing time dilation do you also fail to understand?????

What part of 'slower expansion' meaning 'smaller velocity' do you not understand?

What part of an acceleration being less than before but continuing causing a continuing increase in velocity simply at a smaller rate do you all not understand?????

Again, what part of 'slower expansion' meaning 'slower velocity' do you not understand? The slower expansion *means* a smaller velocity, which *means* a negative acceleration.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand it just fine...

Obviously not. You quoted something that said a "slower expansion" - then claimed that it wasn't a deceleration. An expansion is a rate of increase - a speed - a slower expansion is a decrease in speed, which means a deceleration (negative acceleration).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Simply wrong. Slower means *velocity* smaller, not acceleration smaller.

And if the acceleration is not smaller then the velocity can not be smaller......

If you are going down the road at 50mph, and you slow to 40mph, you are going slower. But your velocity is smaller and your acceleration was negative.

Accept you didn't slow to 40 mph. You accelerated at a specific rate until you reached 50 mph and then you let off the gas a little but continued to accelerate at a lesser rate than you did, at no time did your car ever slow, it simply continued acceleration at a smaller rate.... Expansion is the acceleration of the universe. It continued, just at a smaller value than it did before.

If, instead, your acceleration was positive, but smaller, your speed would be continuing to increase, making you go *faster*, not *slower*

Exactly, So if expansion (the acceleration of the universe) continued to increase at a rate that was just less than it was accelerating before......

No, the expansion was slower. That is a *velocity* not an *acceleration*.

no, expansion is the acceleration of the universe..... points moving apart in relation to one another... Slower expansion simply means less acceleration. The points continuing to move away from one another at an increasing velocity, just at a rate of increase less than before....

The rate of expansion is the *velocity*, not the *acceleration*.

And if the expansion continued to increase.... therefore the velocity continued to increase.... just at a smaller rate than it did previously......

You need to get these basics sorted out before you go any further. The rate of expansion is a *velocity*, not an *acceleration*.

And then according to theory the velocity (expansion) continued to increase, just at a smaller and more gradual rate than before. The velocity can not decrease if it is continuing at a slower and more gradual rate, It simply means the velocity term is increasing at a slower rate than before..... because the acceleration lessened....

In space you must have a reverse acceleration to decrease velocity. I still await your citation for a reverse acceleration..... instead they will all tell you the velocity continued to increase, just not at the same rate as before... An increasing velocity at a smaller rate that continues does not mean or even imply that the velocity factor became less, just that the velocity factor increased at a smaller rate than previously.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Obviously not. You quoted something that said a "slower expansion" - then claimed that it wasn't a deceleration. An expansion is a rate of increase - a speed - a slower expansion is a decrease in speed, which means a deceleration (negative acceleration).

Obviously you mistake increasing velocity at 10G and then increasing velocity further at 5G to a slowing of velocity..... It simply means the rate of increase in the velocity term is smaller than it was, not that the velocity term is smaller than it was.... As you correctly stated - an expansion is a rate of increase, not a decrease, so a continuing expansion at a lesser value simply means an increase in velocity at a smaller value, not a decrease in velocity.....

Whether I accelerate at 10G or decrease the acceleration to 5G, my velocity continues to increase, just at a slower rate than before. And hence expansion continued to increase, just at a slower rate than before...... The expansion - rate of increase at no time stopped, just continued at a lesser value. The increase continued, just at a smaller rate....

 

[Polymath257]

no, expansion is the acceleration of the universe..... points moving apart in relation to one another...

That is *velocity*, not acceleration.

Slower expansion simply means less acceleration.

No, it does not. it means smaller velocity.

The points continuing to move away from one another at an increasing velocity, just at a rate of increase less than before....

No, that is NOT what it means.

And then according to theory the velocity (expansion) continued to increase, just at a smaller and more gradual rate than before.

The *rate* of expansion is the velocity. The expansion factor is the distance. The distance continued to increase, but the velocity got smaller.

The velocity can not decrease if it is continuing at a slower and more gradual rate, It simply means the velocity term is increasing at a slower rate than before..... because the acceleration lessened....

Saying the expansion slowed *means* the velocity of expansion was less.

In space you must have a reverse acceleration to decrease velocity. I still await your citation for a reverse acceleration.....

You gave it already. The expansion slowed. That *means* a decreased *velocity*.

instead they will all tell you the velocity continued to increase,

No, the expansion continued to increase, but at a smaller velocity.

 

[Polymath257]

expansion rate=velocity
decreased expansion rate=decreased velocity=negative acceleration

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you are not....

Of course not. I have only been going over your obvious errors.

Let's not be snarky. Your understanding of relativity is very flawed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is *velocity*, not acceleration.

please show me in any laboratory experiment objects moving apart at an increasing rate that are not increasing in acceleration????

No, it does not. it means smaller velocity.

no, it means the rate of increase (expansion) simply continued at a lesser value, not that the expansion (rate of increase) reversed.....

No, that is NOT what it means.


The *rate* of expansion is the velocity. The expansion factor is the distance. The distance continued to increase, but the velocity got smaller.

Except the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value. It did not slow at all. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this.....

The expansion (velocity) continued after this, just at a smaller value of increase, not at a slower velocity... it continued to increase gradually.....

Saying the expansion slowed *means* the velocity of expansion was less.

Agreed. the rate the velocity increased was less than the previous rate. But it still continued to increase.....

You gave it already. The expansion slowed. That *means* a decreased *velocity*.

no, the rate of expansion slowed, i.e. the increase in velocity slowed, not the velocity term.....

No, the expansion continued to increase, but at a smaller velocity.

Agreed, the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value than it did previously.... I.e. it did not slow the velocity, it continued to increase, just at a smaller rate of increase..... an increase is an increase, whether the rate of increase is more or less than it was before.... in space an increase of a lesser value in no way affects the velocity term except to increase it at a smaller rate..... whether i increase my rate at 1000km/hr then increase it at a slower rate of 500km/hr, i am still increasing my velocity, just at a smaller rate of increase than i was previously. I am or never did slow down in my velocity, just the rate my velocity increased.........

And hence I am still waiting for this citation that said the acceleration reversed...... required to slow velocity.... And I will be waiting till the end of time while you all continue your fruitless epicycles of arguments.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

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....



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.


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.....



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

And your link explains your error to you. You are conflating moving through space with distance increasing due to expansion. The are not the same. If one starts with two objects that are stationary relative to each other and expand the universe they are still not moving relative to each other. Neither one accelerated in a Newtonian sense. Again it is like two ants on a balloon that is inflating. If neither ant moves relative to the surface of the balloon neither is moving in a "Balloonian sense" But the distance between the two is increasing. But getting back to your error that your source points out , it says this:

"It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale. Although light and objects within spacetime cannot travel faster than the speed of light, this limitation does not restrict the metric itself. To an observer it appears that space is expanding and all but the nearest galaxies are receding into the distance."

The bolding is mine. Your own source disagrees with you about the motion of objects that are separating due to expansion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And your link explains your error to you. You are conflating moving through space with distance increasing due to expansion. The are not the same. If one starts with two objects that are stationary relative to each other and expand the universe they are still not moving relative to each other. Neither one accelerated in a Newtonian sense. Again it is like two ants on a balloon that is inflating. If neither ant moves relative to the surface of the balloon neither is moving in a "Balloonian sense" But the distance between the two is increasing. But getting back to your error that your source points out , it says this:

"It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale. Although light and objects within spacetime cannot travel faster than the speed of light, this limitation does not restrict the metric itself. To an observer it appears that space is expanding and all but the nearest galaxies are receding into the distance."

The bolding is mine. Your own source disagrees with you about the motion of objects that are separating due to expansion.

lol, If two objects start stationary and then we expand space, they are indeed accelerating and moving with respect to one another. they are simply not moving with respect to the expansion which is itself moving......

So let's use your interpretation. if the scale of space is changing, then the scale of time is also changing, hence the Hubble Constant is not a constant but instead is a variable... the changing scale of spacetime (since time and space can not be separated) would demand that time change as well.....

Also if it is the changing scale of space- hence not a velocity - then the Hubble constant can not be used because it demands a direct correlation between recessional velocity and distance to redshift.... But this is where you will insist that the objects are receding due to expansion while insisting they are not moving at all..... and all the while ignore your compatriots claims that expansion is indeed a velocity, failing to find the need to correct their error....

Then let's be clear "To an observer it appears that space is expanding" but it really isn't, it would just be a changing scale of time and distance that would make it appear as if their was an expansion. So now we no longer can use expansion or the Hubble Constant which isn't a constant. And hence you are in worse shape than you were before.....

Your argument of time not changing would be lost in any scenario you care to claim..... whether actual velocity or the changing scale of space and time (spacetime).....

 

[ratiocinator]

Except the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value. It did not slow at all. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this.....

The expansion (velocity) continued after this, just at a smaller value of increase, not at a slower velocity...

Expansion is a velocity; "slower expansion" = "smaller velocity" = deceleration. If the universe has a slower expansion than it did in the past, then the velocity decreased.

This isn't complicated. No wonder you're so confused about relativity.

BTW, I guess you're telling us that people who study relativity and cosmology have also (as well as those studying evolution and biology) made fundamental mistakes in ways that only those with an obvious religious vested interest can see?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Expansion is a velocity; "slower expansion" = "smaller velocity" = deceleration. If the universe has a slower expansion than it did in the past, then the velocity decreased.

Expansion is an "increase" in velocity. Therefor a continuing slower increase would simply mean a slower increase in velocity, not a deceleration or a decrease in expansion...

This isn't complicated. No wonder you're so confused about relativity.

Says the person who cant comprehend that an expansion, which is an increase in velocity, even if at a slower rate, simply means a slower rate of velocity increase. So your opinion of my understanding has little relevance to the issue..... instead I would say it is you that can't understand this simple concept that an increase of velocity in space, even if less than before, still increases the velocity..... just with less of an increase... And hence I am still waiting for the citation that acceleration decreased, required to slow velocity in space.....

BTW, I guess you're telling us that people who study relativity and cosmology have also (as well as those studying evolution and biology) made fundamental mistakes in ways that only those with an obvious religious vested interest can see?

It seems those that study relativity think there is no movement or velocity at all, while continuing to use hubble's law which requires a direct correlation between recessional velocity and redshift. I agree their contradictions are plain to see to all those not confined to their little box.....

lol, now you want to bring biology into a discussion of time? Ok fine. When was the last time any biologist had to worry about new organs developing or bacteria or anything changing into something other than they were? Can we say never? So I expect their contradictions are also plain to see to anyone not confined to their little box....

But those with evolutionary vested interests prefer to remain confined within their little box so they can ignore all the contradictions right in front of their eyes......

 

[Polymath257]

please show me in any laboratory experiment objects moving apart at an increasing rate that are not increasing in acceleration????

You seem to be very confused.

First: imagine a balloon being inflated. The amount of expansion is the radius of the balloon. The rate of expansion is how fast that radius is changing. The acceleration of the expansion is how fast that rate of expansion is changing.

It is possible for the balloon to be expanding (radius increasing) but for the rate of expansion to be decreasing (velocity away from the center decreasing, but positive). In that case, the acceleration of the expansion is negative.

Perhaps some history would be helpful here.

When the Big bang scenario was first proposed, it was thought that gravity would slow any expansion. In the case of an open universe, the expansion would continue. But the rate of that expansion would get smaller over time. In the case of a closed universe, the expansion would reverse and the universe would start to contract.

The rate of expansion is how fast the distances between objects is changing. it is a *velocity*. In the old scenario, the velocity would always be positive for an open universe, but would always be getting smaller, so the expansion would be decelerating.

In the case of a closed universe, the velocity would change signs and the universe would start to contract. This would *still* have a decelerating expansion, however.

The big surprise was that the expansion isn't decelerating, but accelerating. In other words, currently the velocity of expansion is getting larger over time.

But, the accelerating expansion is a fairly recent (last 5 billion years) thing and prior to that the expansion was decelerating. In other words, like the old scenario, the velocity was decreasing as the expansion continued. There was no reversal to give a contracting universe.

In the *very* early universe, during the inflationary time period, there was another period of accelerated expansion, but that ended before the period of nucleogenesis. So, after the first microsecond or so, until about 5 billion years ago, the *velocity* of expansion (the expansion rate) was decreasing. The acceleration of expansion was negative.

Except the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value. It did not slow at all. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this.....

yes, the distances between the galaxies continued to increase, but the rate of increase (the velocity) was smaller.

The expansion (velocity) continued after this, just at a smaller value of increase, not at a slower velocity... it continued to increase gradually.....

Precisely wrong. The 'expansion' is the distance. The *rate* of expansion is the velocity. The rate decreased, meaning the velocity decreased.



Agreed. the rate the velocity increased was less than the previous rate. But it still continued to increase.....

no, the rate of expansion slowed, i.e. the increase in velocity slowed, not the velocity term.....

Agreed, the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value than it did previously....

That is NOT what I said. I said that the expansion continued to increase (velocity positive), but not as fast (smaller velocity than before).

I.e. it did not slow the velocity, it continued to increase,

No, to say the expansion decreased *means* the velocity decreased. That *means* a negative acceleration.

just at a smaller rate of increase..... an increase is an increase, whether the rate of increase is more or less than it was before.... in space an increase of a lesser value in no way affects the velocity term except to increase it at a smaller rate..... whether i increase my rate at 1000km/hr then increase it at a slower rate of 500km/hr, i am still increasing my velocity, just at a smaller rate of increase than i was previously. I am or never did slow down in my velocity, just the rate my velocity increased.........

And hence I am still waiting for this citation that said the acceleration reversed...... required to slow velocity.... And I will be waiting till the end of time while you all continue your fruitless epicycles of arguments.....[/QUOTE]

no, it means the rate of increase (expansion) simply continued at a lesser value, not that the expansion (rate of increase) reversed.....



Except the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value. It did not slow at all. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this.....

The expansion (velocity) continued after this, just at a smaller value of increase, not at a slower velocity... it continued to increase gradually.....



Agreed. the rate the velocity increased was less than the previous rate. But it still continued to increase.....

no, the rate of expansion slowed, i.e. the increase in velocity slowed, not the velocity term.....

Agreed, the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value than it did previously.... I.e. it did not slow the velocity, it continued to increase, just at a smaller rate of increase..... an increase is an increase, whether the rate of increase is more or less than it was before.... in space an increase of a lesser value in no way affects the velocity term except to increase it at a smaller rate..... whether i increase my rate at 1000km/hr then increase it at a slower rate of 500km/hr, i am still increasing my velocity, just at a smaller rate of increase than i was previously. I am or never did slow down in my velocity, just the rate my velocity increased.........

And hence I am still waiting for this citation that said the acceleration reversed...... required to slow velocity.... And I will be waiting till the end of time while you all continue your fruitless epicycles of arguments.....[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, If two objects start stationary and then we expand space, they are indeed accelerating and moving with respect to one another. they are simply not moving with respect to the expansion which is itself moving......

So let's use your interpretation. if the scale of space is changing, then the scale of time is also changing, hence the Hubble Constant is not a constant but instead is a variable... the changing scale of spacetime (since time and space can not be separated) would demand that time change as well.....

Also if it is the changing scale of space- hence not a velocity - then the Hubble constant can not be used because it demands a direct correlation between recessional velocity and distance to redshift.... But this is where you will insist that the objects are receding due to expansion while insisting they are not moving at all..... and all the while ignore your compatriots claims that expansion is indeed a velocity, failing to find the need to correct their error....

Then let's be clear "To an observer it appears that space is expanding" but it really isn't, it would just be a changing scale of time and distance that would make it appear as if their was an expansion. So now we no longer can use expansion or the Hubble Constant which isn't a constant. And hence you are in worse shape than you were before.....

Your argument of time not changing would be lost in any scenario you care to claim..... whether actual velocity or the changing scale of space and time (spacetime).....

You are making the error you are accusing others of making. You seem to be thinking that their is a stationary frame of reference. Your attempt to go by my view is a distorted strawman so we can ignore it.

Perhaps if we go over your errors one at a time you will understand. From our point of view the Earth has not moved since the Big Bang. It is at the apparent center of the universe. That does not mean we are there. Any other being on any other planet anywhere in the universe would observe the same thing. As a result there has been no time dilation of our local universe. Do you understand that?

 

[Polymath257]

lol, If two objects start stationary and then we expand space, they are indeed accelerating and moving with respect to one another. they are simply not moving with respect to the expansion which is itself moving......

1. They didn't start stationary.

2. When they are moving away from each other (i.e, expansion), the rate of expansion (the velocity) is positive. They may be accelerating (velocity increasing) or decelerating (velocity decreasing). Even if the expansion is decelerating, there may still be an expansion (moving apart).

So let's use your interpretation. if the scale of space is changing, then the scale of time is also changing, hence the Hubble Constant is not a constant but instead is a variable... the changing scale of spacetime (since time and space can not be separated) would demand that time change as well.....

Yes, the Hubble 'constant' is only the value *right now*. It does change over time. Currently it is increasing.

If you use comoving coordinates, then yes, you can have the scale of time change also. One nice thing about GR is you get to choose time coordinates as you want. proper time is always the invariant result.

Also if it is the changing scale of space- hence not a velocity - then the Hubble constant can not be used because it demands a direct correlation between recessional velocity and distance to redshift.... But this is where you will insist that the objects are receding due to expansion while insisting they are not moving at all..... and all the while ignore your compatriots claims that expansion is indeed a velocity, failing to find the need to correct their error....

The Hubble Law is an approximation for close galaxies (z<<1). for larger z values, you need the more refined GR result.

Then let's be clear "To an observer it appears that space is expanding" but it really isn't, it would just be a changing scale of time and distance that would make it appear as if their was an expansion. So now we no longer can use expansion or the Hubble Constant which isn't a constant. And hence you are in worse shape than you were before.....

The proper distance between comoving objects is increasing with time. That is an expansion.

Your argument of time not changing would be lost in any scenario you care to claim..... whether actual velocity or the changing scale of space and time (spacetime).....

Well, unless you can show this using the appropriate metric (you can't), this is your hope and not the fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

Expansion is an "increase" in velocity.

No, it isn't. An expanasion is an increase in distance - a velocity.

It seems those that study relativity think there is no movement or velocity at all, while continuing to use hubble's law which requires a direct correlation between recessional velocity and redshift. I agree their contradictions are plain to see to all those not confined to their little box.....

So once again you're making the laughable claim that pretty much all the world's experts are wrong and you, and a few religious fundamentalists with an obvious vested interest, are the only ones who are able to see the obvious mistakes.

lol, now you want to bring biology into a discussion of time?

Nope - I was just pointing out that you have the same attitude to evolution (as seen on other threads). Again, the whole world is wrong and you, and the religious vested interest groups, are the only ones who can see the problems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be very confused.

First: imagine a balloon being inflated. The amount of expansion is the radius of the balloon. The rate of expansion is how fast that radius is changing. The acceleration of the expansion is how fast that rate of expansion is changing.

It is possible for the balloon to be expanding (radius increasing) but for the rate of expansion to be decreasing (velocity away from the center decreasing, but positive). In that case, the acceleration of the expansion is negative.

Perhaps some history would be helpful here.

When the Big bang scenario was first proposed, it was thought that gravity would slow any expansion. In the case of an open universe, the expansion would continue. But the rate of that expansion would get smaller over time. In the case of a closed universe, the expansion would reverse and the universe would start to contract.

The rate of expansion is how fast the distances between objects is changing. it is a *velocity*. In the old scenario, the velocity would always be positive for an open universe, but would always be getting smaller, so the expansion would be decelerating.

In the case of a closed universe, the velocity would change signs and the universe would start to contract. This would *still* have a decelerating expansion, however.

The big surprise was that the expansion isn't decelerating, but accelerating. In other words, currently the velocity of expansion is getting larger over time.

But, the accelerating expansion is a fairly recent (last 5 billion years) thing and prior to that the expansion was decelerating. In other words, like the old scenario, the velocity was decreasing as the expansion continued. There was no reversal to give a contracting universe.

In the *very* early universe, during the inflationary time period, there was another period of accelerated expansion, but that ended before the period of nucleogenesis. So, after the first microsecond or so, until about 5 billion years ago, the *velocity* of expansion (the expansion rate) was decreasing. The acceleration of expansion was negative.



yes, the distances between the galaxies continued to increase, but the rate of increase (the velocity) was smaller.



Precisely wrong. The 'expansion' is the distance. The *rate* of expansion is the velocity. The rate decreased, meaning the velocity decreased.



Agreed. the rate the velocity increased was less than the previous rate. But it still continued to increase.....

no, the rate of expansion slowed, i.e. the increase in velocity slowed, not the velocity term.....


That is NOT what I said. I said that the expansion continued to increase (velocity positive), but not as fast (smaller velocity than before).


No, to say the expansion decreased *means* the velocity decreased. That *means* a negative acceleration.

just at a smaller rate of increase..... an increase is an increase, whether the rate of increase is more or less than it was before.... in space an increase of a lesser value in no way affects the velocity term except to increase it at a smaller rate..... whether i increase my rate at 1000km/hr then increase it at a slower rate of 500km/hr, i am still increasing my velocity, just at a smaller rate of increase than i was previously. I am or never did slow down in my velocity, just the rate my velocity increased.........

And hence I am still waiting for this citation that said the acceleration reversed...... required to slow velocity.... And I will be waiting till the end of time while you all continue your fruitless epicycles of arguments.....

no, it means the rate of increase (expansion) simply continued at a lesser value, not that the expansion (rate of increase) reversed.....



Except the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value. It did not slow at all. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this.....

The expansion (velocity) continued after this, just at a smaller value of increase, not at a slower velocity... it continued to increase gradually.....



Agreed. the rate the velocity increased was less than the previous rate. But it still continued to increase.....

no, the rate of expansion slowed, i.e. the increase in velocity slowed, not the velocity term.....

Agreed, the rate of expansion continued to increase, just at a lesser value than it did previously.... I.e. it did not slow the velocity, it continued to increase, just at a smaller rate of increase..... an increase is an increase, whether the rate of increase is more or less than it was before.... in space an increase of a lesser value in no way affects the velocity term except to increase it at a smaller rate..... whether i increase my rate at 1000km/hr then increase it at a slower rate of 500km/hr, i am still increasing my velocity, just at a smaller rate of increase than i was previously. I am or never did slow down in my velocity, just the rate my velocity increased.........

And hence I am still waiting for this citation that said the acceleration reversed...... required to slow velocity.... And I will be waiting till the end of time while you all continue your fruitless epicycles of arguments.....

Perhaps if we went over one point at a time. Now from my understanding the expansion is no a motion in the normal sense. Two object that were stationary with respect to each other would see the distance increase between the two of them but neither would feel any acceleration as the expansion rate either increased or decreased. Is that not correct?

The reason I want to break this down is it appears that he thinks there is some ultimate location for observing the universe. In other words an absolute frame of reference and I do not think that exists.