The Age of the Observable universe has to be a lot older than 14 billion years...

Aren't the recently proven gravitational waves part of GR?

ignore that kid
gps and the precession of mercury proved GR a long time ago

this is BS, ignore

there is no such thing as a universe

>how it is possible for a Star that is 50 billion light years away from our position . to be visible

Because you're seeing, not the star itself, but the light it radiated long ago

I don't know where you're getting your information from, we definitely CAN'T see light from 50 Gly away for precisely the reason you're saying. The farthest we can see is a redshift of ~1100 which is just under 14 Gly.

Source: BS in Astrophysics

Ha ;) Math that is logical correct, does not prove the theory it explains.

Math here is used as an abstraction to the theory.

This Youtubevid is a good point on how you can use a logical proof to claim a thoery to be correct. yet there is no proof of this to be correct.

He claims there is no edge to the universe. yet we are only able to observe 50 billion light years into space. Clearly the lack of light from above this observable limit. would indicate there to be an edge.

He dont explain how space is able to move matter much faster than light it self, but nothing that is moved is affected, and all matter in space can view the light.

If a Ant is on a balloon that is moving at more than twice the speed of light.

Stars do not Rest on a plane to be expanded.

how does the Ant on the balloon expand at more than 2 times the speed of light.

If space is Expanding it would move all Matter in a uniform expansion, since all stars would be on the same balloon. yet for a star to be 50 billion light years away from us. Each star would need to be on their own balloon plane to be moved away from each other.

You can tell he have no clue what hes talking about, all he is doing is showing you the Mathematical abstraction of a theoretic possibility. but provides no logical proof of the theory it self, but does so on the abstraction.

It emitted light at it's original position. So rather than never reaching us, it just reaches us much later than normal. It does reach us because individually we're not travelling faster than light.

>precession of mercury

If you attach a string with a stone at the end, while standing spinning inside a gyroscope and swinging and spinning the cord. It would just indicate that the massive angular momentum of the sun affects the plants around it.

It does not prove that Gravity bends space.

If you take 2 objects, one heavy and one light.
If you drop these in space. both would fall at the same speed. Yet if Mass (gravity) in space affected space. the smaller object would be stuck in a orbit around the larger objects mass since it would bend space more.

But the problem is that our sun is in orbit around our galactic center. a stars mass does not bend space into a curvature to witch the planets will orbit.

But the planets are falling along side the Star around the center of the galactic center

You can test this with 2 objects in your room, one heavy and one light. they both fall at the same speed.

Its impossible for Gravity to bend space and bend light with the curvature of the bent space.

Since the star radiate the light.

If the stars gravity is strong enough to bend light passing from a different star.

Then It Would never emit any light at all.

Since General relativity states that lights travel at a constant speed.

And To bend the light, you would need to alter its path.

Yet light is able to escape the very Gravity that has the magical property of bending light that has traveled from a star 50 billion light years away.

And if a star is able to bend light with gravity, how then would the galactic center do?

light is is able to pass trillions of galaxy's on its path over billions of light year.

If Gravity had any effect on space or light. not a single star would emit light.

If General relativity was correct.

It would be possible to bend light from a laser diode.

No matter how large of mass you have, it would never change the path of light passing next to it.

>Perihelion of Mercury
>Bending of light by stars
>Hulse-Taylor binary (pic related)
>Distribution of galaxies (and lambda-CDM in general)
>Gravitational waves

There's probably a lot more, but those are the ones I can think of just off the top of my head.

>If the stars gravity is strong enough to bend light passing from a different star.
>Then It Would never emit any light at all.
This is basically the equivalent of saying that space rockets are impossible because their paths are bent by the Earth's gravity.

How is it possible for our Earths iron core to exist, when it has to come from the later stages of a star. Our Star has not reached the possibility of ejecting so much iron into space, that our planets core would be formed.

star that is 14Gly Away emitted light for 14 billion of years. but our Star has Elements fused by Stars in their late stages.

So, if you take the distance to our Star to the nearest star.

1,080,000,000 km/h is the speed of light
stars travel at a fixed 72,000 km/h witch seems to be the maximum velocity possible for matter to travel in space. since all stars seem to fall at this speed around the galactic center.

It would take matter 15,000 times longer than light to travel the same distance.

a Old star ejaculate some iron when it is at the end of its life. and

the rotation of all the stars around the galactic vagina. a star is bound to crash into the freshly fused elements left from the older star.

Do you really think all of this can happen in 14 billion years.

Bismuth-209 exist with a measured half life of a billion times 14 billion.

How can something exist in a universe that has a lifetime of 1 billion times more than the Age of the matter from it was created?

14 billion years is about the average life time of a star. since that is the longest optical measurement of light we have.

If Our earth moves around the sun, and the sun moves around the center of the galaxy. then our galaxy moves around something as well.

optical view range of 14 billion years. yet we are able to view a object that is close to the age of our entire universe ?

If the light you are looking at is 14 billion years old. how did your point of view exist 14 billion years ago. So if you combine the time that this light takes to reach us, time for formation of our sun. and account for the time that our elements where fused in other stars.

>The farthest we can see is a redshift of ~1100 which is just under 14 Gly.

Then you failed miserably.

astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size

You should be embarrassed by that one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size

m8, that poster typed like an ass-blasted 2 year old. Do you think they're really so retarded as to not know how to Google 'tests of general relativity?' Ya just gotta ignore the zoo animals and move on.

The rule of relativity is that no object may exceed the speed of light as measured according to space at the object.

However, space itself is expanding. Imagine any constant uniform expansion of any rate. For any such rate, the distance between two points grows at a rate proportional to the distance between them. So, for any such rate, there will be a finite distance so that the two objects have the distance in between them increasing at a rate faster than the speed of light. A light signal sent from one spot will never reach the other spot due to the expansion of space.

There's a thing called red-shift. Of course, the gravity of a star effects it's own light. But since the speed of light is always constant, instead of reducing the light's speed, it reduces it's frequency. Thus, the light is shifted into the red spectrum.

Perihelion of Mercury is not a proof that gravity bends space&time. it just show how 2 objects that have a angular momentum while falling at the same speed in space affect each other.

Bending of light by stars

Em no. not in the sense that the stars massive gravity warps space&time making even light wrap around it.

Refraction, a huge ball of hydrogen, blasting out huge amount of light, when this source is blocked, like during an eclipse you get a solar refraction.

If you could bend light with gravity.

then we would have no problems redirecting the beam of a laser just by having a large mass next to its path, without blocking or absorbing the energy.

lambda is based on the idea that general relativity is a fact. and that "Gravity functions the same on not only our galaxy's but the things that are outside of our current ability to see/understand.

assumes a unproven popular theory to be true, builds on that, to guess that everything must function like that. without even explaining how

the logical issues with an expanding universe. without explaining how space can expand and carry the matter within it, at several times the speed of light in different directions.

Almost like they assume that since the gravity bends space with a reaction in space&time moving entire galaxy's throw time and space at amazing speeds. all while the light from every

source we can see, is light from the path of light
from a distant star. Yet this space time
distortion does not affect the distant star, nor our own.

"Gravitational" waves"

detected with a light sensor, they monitor the light from a Binary system. and clearly this light is gravitational waves.

You cant detect gravity from a Object in space, unless you are affected by the angular rotation
of the mass. and that does not travel across

space. its amazing how thees gravity waves can travel in space, not affecting anything. but their detector. Yet Gravity from our sun bends space&time.

And this is proven how?

So if space moves the objects so fast, that light from two Stars will never reach. how is it possible for us to view light from 14 billion years ago, in our frame. when our solar system didn't even exist? The expanding space would carry us from the light source that it would never reach us.

I do understand the idea behind the space expatiation, its just no proof that space expand at all. and the theory's to prove it are often logical proofs, made from theoretical ideas that are not proven, but assumed to be true, and then more "facts" are built on the assumption that the first theory was true.

If space is expanding at such an insane rate pulling all matter away.

then how is our universe so stable.

if the universe expanded, then the 14 billion year old light would be gone. since the Star would have been moved away by the expatiation of space

>how is it possible for us to view light from 14 billion years ago, in our frame. when our solar system didn't even exist?

>Some classical bullshit
I'm sorry to tell you this but there's no classical explanation for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. If you have one, then please supply the mathematics, I'd love to see it.

>then we would have no problems redirecting the beam of a laser just by having a large mass next to its path

Sort of, but "large mass" is a bit of an understatement since it needs to be on the order of a solar mass.

>its amazing how thees gravity waves can travel in space, not affecting anything. but their detector.

But they did affect everything, it's just the effect they had was incredibly small. Which is why it was only LIGO that noticed, it was designed to detect contractions/expansions of that magnitude.

Yeah because you can explain it yourself huh

the precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Is an effect of its compressed iron core.

due to its Angular resonance with the sun it has a high orbit velocity.

Venus and Earth allso affect the perihelion

All three planets have a highly active iron core, and this induce a magnetic field.

Mercury, Venus and Earth each affect each other, much like the moon makes the Earths Axis Wobble.

Earth has the strongest effect on Venus. and Venus has a equal effect on Earth and Mercury

Due to its high speed around the sun Mercury over takes Venus and earth Several times

At times Mercury is close to Venus but far from Earth, and close to Earth but Far From Venus. and close to both at the same time.

this creates a huge force tilting creating a wobble and spin, as it moves away from both planets the resonance force with the sun draws it closer to the sun compressing the iron core more. as it overtakes Venus its pulled slightly out of its resonance orbit, pushing Venus.

This is Why Venus has a retrograded Rotation

Due to the effect of both Earth and Mercury,

Mercury,Venus and Earth interact like a big Magnetic clock work. so as Earth and Mercury rotate counter clock wise, Venus is trapped in the middle and just like clock cogs, Venus is pushed into a clock wise rotation.

and in turn Mercury gets the biggest amplitude of the Axial tilt and Wobble, this with the resonance pull from the sun, creates the

perihelion of Mercury.

the hole idea of Gravitational waves is from general relativity. sure they are detecting something. they might be mistaken as to what they are measuring,

in 2014/15 they claimed to have found evidence of gravitational waves, but it turned out to be Cosmic dust.

its not impossible that they are looking at it in the wrong way.

They make some wild claims with no proof to pack it up.

Gravity is an effect of Mass. and its impossible for gravity to leave the Mass, since the Gravity we experience is the direct result of a moving spinning mass falling in space.

gravity always points inwards to the center of mass. it does not extend any other way.

and it does not exist without mass. it has a limited range based on the radius and density of the mass.

>Provide a single proof of general relativity and il give you 1 bitcoin.
Time dilation has been measured before by the ISS.

Troll, you can google this shit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

A yes, the Atomic clock in space.

Making a clock run slower does not prove time dilation, it just shows that if you lift a clock built on earth. the decreased pull from the earths center of mass.

If i put a large magnet to a metallic clock and move the dial 5 hours forward have i then traveled into the future?

All those "proofs" could be explained by a more logical explanation.

What do you think is more logical, that during a solar eclipse we are able to see light from distant stars because our sun bends the light around its mass from loads of light years away.

Or that the heat and hydrogen emitted from the sun, with the blocking of sunlight, makes a refractive lense

>Theory predicts x
>Experiment affirms x
>"Nah dude, x isn't actually x, I don't know what it is but muh feels demand it be something else"

Lol.

Why in the F is Mercury's core so massive?!

You are right

>Is an effect of its compressed iron core.

No it isn't.

nice

>Or that the heat and hydrogen emitted from the sun, with the blocking of sunlight, makes a refractive lense
Given that you get the same value for the lensing at optical and radio wavlengths there is no refractive mechanism which can explain it. GR however predicts it.

>>then please supply the mathematics
>Is an effect of its compressed iron core.
I'm sure we can take your word for it that you've run the calculation?

>observed time dilation
>gps
>Gravity waves
>gravitational lensing
>op's dick size is one order of magnitude of the plank length
Proof faggot

Why are you so bent on a 'logical explanation'? Can you even define logical, without having to resort to 'it makes more sense to me'?

Nature is the way it is. We develop theories and models, sometimes to predict nature that we haven't see yet and sometimes to explain nature that have seen but couldn't have explained before. No one is claiming that these theories are perfectly accurate, how could they? But we can rigorously test these experiments, and we can also come up with alternative theories that might also explain the data by a different mechanism. But here's the important part -- the theory has to actually fit the data, and it has to fit ALL the data. Logic in science isn't about what we feel is right -- humans are highly emotional, illogical creatures. Scientific logic is consistency, with itself and with the real world -- or, at least what we can observe and measure from the real world.

It is mass that bends space-time, not gravity. There IS no gravity, there is only bending.
It is much easier to act and think as though gravity was real, though :-)

Two objects moving away from each other at 100% the speed of light each since the beginning of the universe would at maximum separate to a distance of twice the speed of light times the age of the universe, or roughly 30 billion light years.

>Yes i get it. But How then, are we able to observe from a center?
We are not observing from a center of anything, just the center of the range of own viewpoint, which is tautological.

>If all matter started expanding away from each other 14 billion years ago, at the speed of light.
It's an accelerated expansion that can go faster than the speed of light. And it's not strictly the matter which is expanding away, it is the space on which the matter rests. The light speed limit applies to matter moving through space, not matter staying still while space expands.

>If there was an Expansion point. then we should be observing from the rim.
The Big Bang was an expansion of space itself. It did not happen at a point in space but in all space, uniformly.

>Also if we move away from each other at light speed. How is your light able to reach me.
It can't. You can only see light from things that weren't always moving away from you that quickly. Eventually we won't be able to see the other galaxies around us.

>Yet im able to observe light that is traveling away from me at light speed while my point is moving in the other direction.
From your perspective (and any perspective) that light will be moving at exactly lightspeed (assuming vacuum). Because light speed is constant (this is an empirically proven fact), speed is not strictly additive. You need to apply a dilation factor when objects are moving at speeds which are a significant fraction of the speed of light.

>And yet we are able to see Light that is 50 billion light years away from us.
No, you misunderstand. When we say that the observable universe has a radius 50 billion lightyears long, that means that the oldest light we can find is from a supercluster of galaxies that AT THIS POINT are 50 billion lightyears away. But that light itself wasn't from 50 billion lightyears away.

>He claims there is no edge to the universe. yet we are only able to observe 50 billion light years into space. Clearly the lack of light from above this observable limit. would indicate there to be an edge.
The observable universe is not the universe though. We know this because the observable universe is constantly changing in size. If you stay in your room all day, is there no outside?

>Stars do not Rest on a plane to be expanded.
Of course they do, they rest in space.

>how does the Ant on the balloon expand at more than 2 times the speed of light.
The ant doesn't expand, the balloon does. Light speed limit applies to objects moving through space, not space itself expanding.

>If space is Expanding it would move all Matter in a uniform expansion, since all stars would be on the same balloon.
The expansion is observed to be uniform. But keep in mind that because of gravity, close clusters of galaxies stay pretty much the same.

>yet for a star to be 50 billion light years away from us. Each star would need to be on their own balloon plane to be moved away from each other.
Huh? If you have multiple objects on the balloon, and the balloon expands uniformly, all objects "move" away from each other uniformly.

>asks for explanation
>then claims there is no proof because it was only explained
Why do you keep doing this? We only came up with these theories because of the proof of them, the empirical observations which inspire them and then the observations which confirm what was predicted. All of these things are well proven by decades of observation of space. Use google if you want the raw data.

I have always thought about this aswell, in exactly the same way.

What is the name of this theory/idea?

It does not prove that Gravity is bending the light, when we know Light is refracted in a lens.

And passing a huge amount of galaxy's on its way to our observation point.

So the light is refracted since the galaxy's are acting as a refractive lens.

I did explain that it was due to Earth,Venus and the Sun. compression of the core is just one factor.

All those proofs are based on the thoery to be right.

There are other explanations for those Proofs.

> skepticism is bad

mass does not bend space-time.

A larger mass would bend space more.

and this would slow down the mass.

Yet all observed galaxy's and stars have the same velocity.

Because the star was not found in conventional ways. It was not the light from the star that we recognized but the affects of its gravity. Gravity, unlike light is instantaneous over vast distances.

but the very base to prove that the universe is expanding is light from distant galaxys.

and if light is not affected by the expansion. yet the evidence is that it does.

Yet, the light is 50 billion years away now. You could say that you are correct using the theory based on GR that space expands.

But perhaps the the light is 50 billion years old, and have traveled here in that time frame.

Most of the observed evidence for GR is based on it to be true.

If space was supporting Stars, and stars distort space based on their mass. then differently sized stars would travel at different speeds. yet they all have the exact same speed passing throw space.

If Gravity from Mass in space affect space-time.

Then space would also be able to affect Mass

Since the ant is part of the mass, it would be affected as well.

Yes, i do agree that the theoretical logic behind the ant on the balloon is correct. but it does not apply to our universe. even tho its used as an abstract explanation, and the abstraction is correct. does not prove the theory of witch the abstraction is based on to be correct.

The reason we can observe background radiation is because the light emitted from stars over 50 billion years have dissipated and we are only able to detect light-waves that are not seen by optical.

Since light dissipate from Photoelectric absorption during its path.

If you're putting into question GR, the only thing I'm going to tell you is that there can be many theories that make correct predictions, it just so happens to be that GR is the simplest and most elegant way to describe the cosmos at the macroscopic scale, this isn't a about being right or wrong, it's about correctly describing the universe which GR does better than any other model we know of.

If the logic behind the evidence to prove a theory is based on the theory to be correct.

Then a different explanation that is observable would void the proof. and the Theory invalid.

A explanation of a Logical truth is The way it is.

Its logical to assume that a human will be born if as sperm cell enters an egg.

And yet they measure "gravitational waves" with light detectors?

yet GR does not comply with quantum physics.

If you apply Quantum mechanics to the universe. you get a much better reality since its based on observable facts in measurements of experiments.

Where you can observe the effect.

the simplest explanation of our universe is with Wave function and vectors within vectors.

>Since light dissipate from Photoelectric absorption during its path.

a) that wouldn't explain redshift being independent of frequency b) that would change the direction of the photon, blurring images which is not observed

Tried light is quite dead. It cannot match the CMB spectrum.

>If space was supporting Stars, and stars distort space based on their mass. then differently sized stars would travel at different speeds. yet they all have the exact same speed passing throw space.
First of all that doesn't follow. At all. I can't find any logic that would support going from "stars distort space based on mass" (aka gravity) to "stars move at different speeds" One has little to do with the other. Second of all it's not true that all stars have the exact same speed (relative to what?).

>Since the ant is part of the mass, it would be affected as well.
It is affected in that it is carried away from everything else as space expands. That's it.

>Yes, i do agree that the theoretical logic behind the ant on the balloon is correct. but it does not apply to our universe.
Why not?

>even tho its used as an abstract explanation, and the abstraction is correct. does not prove the theory of witch the abstraction is based on to be correct.
Again, I'm not trying to prove the theory. I'm just explaining it to you since you are severely ignorant of it. The proof is that it fits all observations of the universe, and predicted phenomena which were then observed. If you would like to propose an alternative model then show it explains at least everything that the current one does while also being simpler. But you won't, because you don't even understand the basics of what you're trying to argue against.

>and if light is not affected by the expansion. yet the evidence is that it does.
Light is redshifted by the expansion.

>But perhaps the the light is 50 billion years old, and have traveled here in that time frame.
Then the CMB would be redshifted differently. The redshift is correlated perfectly with the expansion of space. Physicists actually predicted the CMB from Big Bang theory before the CMB was ever observed. It's one of the great proofs of the Big Bang.

...