|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2010 : 18:56:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
If the objects A and B are moving the distance is according to this, so in a universe in expansion the distance would be expansion + stretch, but expansion is the moving of the objects and stretch is our separation.
In expansion universe the stretch is in relation with expansion, so double distance is half expansion and also stretch. The formula of expansion + stretch is not 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 is not so, is: +25% of 75% (=93%), +50% of 50% (= 75%), +75% of 25% (=43%). Really is not 25-50-75% (this is thinking in homogeneity), the universe according to theory expand less in past (and by that farther) by that the expansion is like 8,4,2,1 (periods of t/4), by that is more like stretch of 8/15%, 12/15% and 14/15% - 12 is 8+4 and 14 is 8+4+2. |
I see how you've edited the above section, but you haven't made it any clearer. There isn't a single formula in there, despite your claim that there is. "Expansion" doesn't describe the movement of any objects, and "stretch" is not a word that should appear in a scholarly discussion of cosmological expansion. You need to go learn the current science before trying to critique it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 00:55:45 [Permalink]
|
I arrange 1w and 2w in my page : http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/expands/bigargs-html/#tag00a
and add 3w:
3w – Light in d with speed of c need always travel at c.
The light we see in d (Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]) has speed of c = d/t, but where it was in d/2 also need the same speed and in all point (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = d/t . If in any point speed is less that c in other need to be more that c.
If it’s in d but not travel to c (inflation) it’s against Hubble’s law that is a register of all this time.
If it travels always at c it’s against Hubble’s law that relations distance and speed and expansion theory that say that expansion is equal in all points and by that more in more distance.
In the same form, distance – speed an object from d/8 to d/4 need t/2, from d/4 to d/2 need t/2 and from d/2 to d need t/2, but from d/2 it would be not visible because it needs speed of c.
|
| Edited by - lbiar on 07/06/2010 00:58:42 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 01:21:57 [Permalink]
|
Ibiar, really, learn decent English first. Then actually learn about the theory you say you disagree with. Then come back.
Your writings are incoherent and quite frankly, almost impossible to parse. Of the few bits and pieces where I can somewhat parse what you are trying to say, you just fail to understand inflation. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 08:38:16 [Permalink]
|
I read a bunch more on lbiar's blog, and the problems only get worse.
1) He's invented a law of conservation of space itself, without any good justification.
2) He clearly doesn't understand that Hubble's Law only describes what we see right now, and that during inflationary periods or as cosmological expansion accelerates, Hubble's "constant" will necessarily be different from what we measure today. Instead, he thinks that inflation would "violate" Hubble's Law, and so he discards inflationary theory as being impossible.
3) He thinks that the Cosmic Microwave Background comes from "objects" that are 13.7 billion light years away. While atomic nucleii are "objects," he specifically mentions "stars" in relation to the CMB, and generally seems clueless about its origins. And the "time equals distance" stuff simply ignores cosmological expansion, instead of refuting it.
4) Worst of all, he thinks that if, over some period of time T, some section of the universe expanded from 1 meter to 2 meters, then given another time T, it would expand not to 4 meters, but only to 3 meters. In other words, he thinks that the expansion is constant over time (and that somehow different parts of the universe communicate with each other so that they "know" to "slow" the expansion as the distances increase, from 100% to 50% to 33% to 25%, etc.), when we observe it to be proportional to distance and time, both.
5) He also thinks that if the expanding-universe concept were correct, then all of our neighboring galaxies should have already expanded out of view. He seems to understand that expansion occurs away from "gravity," but doesn't grok that our local group of galaxies is a pretty big gravity well. Someday, in the far-off future, things will have expanded so much that astronomers will be unable to make the observations that lead to a conclusion of cosmological expansion, but that day is trillions of years from now, at least.
6) He also thinks that the "Big Bang" theory suggests that we should be at the "center" of the universe, which should be much more dense (in terms of galaxies) than the far-away parts. That we're not in the middle of a dense cloud of galaxies, he sees as disproof of the theory.
7) lbiar favors an infinitely old universe in which galaxies actively move apart and "bending light" accounts for our observations, but fails to apply to his idea the same laws of thermodynamics that he thinks make cosmological expansion impossible. In an infinitely old universe, entropy should already have maximized and we shouldn't be having this discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 07:20:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I read a bunch more on lbiar's blog, and the problems only get worse.
1) He's invented a law of conservation of space itself, without any good justification.
|
Correct, there is not any proof over expansion or creation of space, the expansion theory and big-bang are theories not proofs.
I'm according to visual expansion and against real expansion. My work treat to demonstrate that he universe does not expand - http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/
Originally posted by Dave W.
2) He clearly doesn't understand that Hubble's Law only describes what we see right now, and that during inflationary periods or as cosmological expansion accelerates, Hubble's "constant" will necessarily be different from what we measure today. Instead, he thinks that inflation would "violate" Hubble's Law, and so he discards inflationary theory as being impossible.
|
No. I say that inflation cannot be against Hubble's law, by that if was inflation need to be before the time we see in the universe (we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang) in the other form 1: inflation need brake and 2: this brake is not detected in visual universe according to Hubble's law. All the universe we see is acording to Hubble's law and by that with distance - speed and here there is not place for speed of inflation.
Originally posted by Dave W.
3) He thinks that the Cosmic Microwave Background comes from "objects" that are 13.7 billion light years away. While atomic nucleii are "objects," he specifically mentions "stars" in relation to the CMB, and generally seems clueless about its origins. And the "time equals distance" stuff simply ignores cosmological expansion, instead of refuting it.
|
No. I understand the theory that say that CMB is in all parts, but CMB have 13.7 billion years old (in 13 billions years there is quasar and by that CMB is older) but we cannot see light of 13.7 billion years old, we can only see light so older at 13.7 billion lightyears in distance.
Is curious that the comoving universe is more bigger but we see until 13.7 billion years old and only 379,000 years after the Big Bang.
Originally posted by Dave W.
4) Worst of all, he thinks that if, over some period of time T, some section of the universe expanded from 1 meter to 2 meters, then given another time T, it would expand not to 4 meters, but only to 3 meters. In other words, he thinks that the expansion is constant over time (and that somehow different parts of the universe communicate with each other so that they "know" to "slow" the expansion as the distances increase, from 100% to 50% to 33% to 25%, etc.), when we observe it to be proportional to distance and time, both.
|
No. According to the theory all places expand equal, but at double distance we see double older and by that in double older the universe was expanded half of younger one. According to the theory the universe expand with distance - time in the form 4-3-2-1 and visible how 1-2-3-4 (each period is s/4). Or in distance - speed 4-2-1 and visible 1-2-4 (double distance is double speed). The homogeneous according to the theory is by stretch, the theory say that expansion + stretch is 100: 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 but I demonstrate in 2w that this is error and by that a universe in expansion would not be homogeneous (the stretch would to be in the form 50,100,200 not 25-50-75 because 1/2 x +50% is only 75% and not 100). But how I explain in 2w the stretch is in the form 50-75-95. Explain : it's not the same +50% of 20 = 30 and -50% of 30 = 15.
Originally posted by Dave W.
5) He also thinks that if the expanding-universe concept were correct, then all of our neighboring galaxies should have already expanded out of view. He seems to understand that expansion occurs away from "gravity," but doesn't grok that our local group of galaxies is a pretty big gravity well. Someday, in the far-off future, things will have expanded so much that astronomers will be unable to make the observations that lead to a conclusion of cosmological expansion, but that day is trillions of years from now, at least.
|
I think strange that comoving universe is of 46 billion lightyears and we see 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang.
Originally posted by Dave W.
6) He also thinks that the "Big Bang" theory suggests that we should be at the "center" of the universe, which should be much more dense (in terms of galaxies) than the far-away parts. That we're not in the middle of a dense cloud of galaxies, he sees as disproof of the theory
|
I don't speak today over this, but in a expansive spherical universe there is a centre, only a spherical expansion see the same distance in all radius.
Today I don't speak over this. I have here 3 works that don't speak over this. In my page rest the theme but I don't delete it. I don't need this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have arranged my 3w:
3w - Light in d with speed of c need always travel at c.
The light we see in d (Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]) has speed of c = d/t, but where it was in d/2 also need the same speed and in all point (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = d/t . If in any point speed is less that c in other need to be more that c.
If it’s in d but not travel to c (inflation) it’s against Hubble’s law that is a register of all this time.
If it travels always at c it’s against Hubble’s law that relations distance and speed and expansion theory that say that expansion is equal in all points and by that more in more distance.
In the same form, distance – speed an object from d/8 to d/4 need t/2, from d/4 to d/2 need t/2 and from d/2 to d need t/2, but from d/2 it would be not visible because it needs speed of c.
According to the theory distance – speed, it would need to be in form 4-2-1in each t/2 in d/4 – d/2 and d (without homogeneity), so the addition is 7, in this form in each t/2 is 4d/7 (>c), 2d/7 and d/7. In this form in d/4 (the more near to us would need to expand more that c and this is impossible). This makes also that in t the distance is d/2 and in 3t/2 is d, and seeing from d that the segments are t/3 (we speak over 3 segments of t/2).
really we need to separe in t/3, so would be 4d/7/3=12/7 (>c), 2d/7/3=6d/7 (near c) and d/7/3=3d/7.
This is impossible, in a universe in expansion here the speed would to be 4d/7/3=12/7 of c (>c) and we would not see any star.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks by your post. |
| Edited by - lbiar on 07/07/2010 07:22:57 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 08:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
Correct, there is not any proof over expansion or creation of space, the expansion theory and big-bang are theories not proofs. |
Apparently, you don't understand what the word "theory" means, either.| I'm according to visual expansion and against real expansion. My work treat to demonstrate that he universe does not expand - http://bigbangno.wordpress.com/ |
But your "work" gets so much stuff wrong that it doesn't demonstrate anything but your own ignorance.| No. I say that inflation cannot be against Hubble's law, by that if was inflation need to be before the time we see in the universe (we see objects at 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang) in the other form 1: inflation need brake and 2: this brake is not detected in visual universe according to Hubble's law. All the universe we see is acording to Hubble's law and by that with distance - speed and here there is not place for speed of inflation. |
No, inflation doesn't need a "brake," it needs to just run out of the energy that drove it, which is exactly what Lambda-CDM theory states. Most of the inflaton's energy was actually converted into the mass and energy we're familiar with.| No. I understand the theory that say that CMB is in all parts, but CMB have 13.7 billion years old (in 13 billions years there is quasar and by that CMB is older) but we cannot see light of 13.7 billion years old, we can only see light so older at 13.7 billion lightyears in distance. |
No, we see light that's nearly 13.7 billion years old. The "objects" that created that light are much further away than that, thanks to expansion.| Is curious that the comoving universe is more bigger but we see until 13.7 billion years old and only 379,000 years after the Big Bang. |
No, it's not "curious" at all. It may be counter-intuitive, but so is much of Relativity. Physics is much stranger than common experience.| No. According to the theory all places expand equal, but at double distance we see double older and by that in double older the universe was expanded half of younger one. |
This makes no sense.| According to the theory the universe expand with distance - time in the form 4-3-2-1 and visible how 1-2-3-4 (each period is s/4). Or in distance - speed 4-2-1 and visible 1-2-4 (double distance is double speed). The homogeneous according to the theory is by stretch, the theory say that expansion + stretch is 100: 100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 but I demonstrate in 2w that this is error and by that a universe in expansion would not be homogeneous (the stretch would to be in the form 50,100,200 not 25-50-75 because 1/2 x +50% is only 75% and not 100). But how I explain in 2w the stretch is in the form 50-75-95. Explain : it's not the same +50% of 20 = 30 and -50% of 30 = 15. |
These numbers make no mathematical or logical sense. I can't even begin to figure out where you've gone wrong because I can't figure out what you're trying to say.| I think strange that comoving universe is of 46 billion lightyears and we see 13.7 billion light years and 379,000 years after the Big Bang. |
Yes, and most people think it's "strange" that light moves at c always, or that light is simultaneously both particle and wave. There are many things in physics that are "strange" at first glance. But that doesn't mean that they're wrong.| I don't speak today over this, but in a expansive spherical universe there is a centre, only a spherical expansion see the same distance in all radius. |
Well, there's part of your problem. Who says the universe is spherical? And no, a universal expansion of space itself matches what we'd see from any point.3w - Light in d with speed of c need always travel at c.
The light we see in d (Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]) has speed of c = d/t, but where it was in d/2 also need the same speed and in all point (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = d/t . If in any point speed is less that c in other need to be more that c.
If it’s in d but not travel to c (inflation) it’s against Hubble’s law that is a register of all this time.
If it travels always at c it’s against Hubble’s law that relations distance and speed and expansion theory that say that expansion is equal in all points and by that more in more distance.
In the same form, distance – speed an object from d/8 to d/4 need t/2, from d/4 to d/2 need t/2 and from d/2 to d need t/2, but from d/2 it would be not visible because it needs speed of c.
According to the theory distance – speed, it would need to be in form 4-2-1in each t/2 in d/4 – d/2 and d (without homogeneity), so the addition is 7, in this form in each t/2 is 4d/7 (>c), 2d/7 and d/7. In this form in d/4 (the more near to us would need to expand more that c and this is impossible). This makes also that in t the distance is d/2 and in 3t/2 is d, and seeing from d that the segments are t/3 (we speak over 3 segments of t/2).
really we need to separe in t/3, so would be 4d/7/3=12/7 (>c), 2d/7/3=6d/7 (near c) and d/7/3=3d/7.
This is impossible, in a universe in expansion here the speed would to be 4d/7/3=12/7 of c (>c) and we would not see any star. |
I can't parse any of this stuff, except to say that expansion faster than c is certainly possible, because nothing is moving. No information is being transmitted faster than c. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 10:43:41 [Permalink]
|
| I'm just wondering would if these theories explain why, un , the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old in some places and it's only 6000 years old in others, like Texas. Maybe they're connected in some way. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 13:24:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'm just wondering would if these theories explain why, un , the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old in some places and it's only 6000 years old in others, like Texas. Maybe they're connected in some way. SS
|
 |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 20:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'm just wondering would if these theories explain why, un , the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old in some places and it's only 6000 years old in others, like Texas. Maybe they're connected in some way. SS
|
SS, you just stumbled upon that pesky 'Old Jehovah' worm-hole showing up again between Texas and Revelations.
 |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 06:24:11 [Permalink]
|
Changes in 3w:
3w – Light in d with speed of c travel from d/2 at c how average speed.
3w.1 - According to the theory double distance is also double speed, but if the light at d/2 need t, the light at d would need 3t/2 or t/2 more, how d/t=c and this d-(d/2) is in t/2 the formula is (d/2)/(t/2) and this is also = c, by that needs an average speed of c. In these conditions we could not see near d, only a few more of d/2 (also need to add stretch). (double speed is: same distance at half time or double distance at same time).
This option seems that we only would to see until d/2 or 3d/2 and that d/2 to d average speed is c - not possible and against with that we see.
3w.2.1 - 0.25-0.5-1 give 1.75 of distance (0.25 is d/4, 1 is d), in this case 1 is c but the average is 1.75d/t
Double distance at same time is double speed: t/3 at 0.25 distance, t/3 at 0.5 distance, t/3 at 1 distance. This is near how we see the universe.
1.75d/t give an average speed of 0.58d/(t/3) but in the universe we see light near lightspeed and the same years. We see in the universe really d/t or near (99%d/99%t) but double distance at double speed not permit it. (suppose t/3 is 1 year and 1.75 is the distance in 3 years)
With stretching of 43.75% (according to 2w) would give 0.58 x +43.75% = 0.83375 and not 1 (We see objects at 13.7 billion light years of distance and also at 13.7 billion years of time).
3w.2.2- How average speed is c, if we see the end or d the time is divided in t/3 by that according to begin is (d/2)/(t/2) = c but according to end is (d/2)/(t/3) = 1.5c . This is not according to distance - speed (the same for d/2,d/4, .. and also need to add the stretch).
3w.3 - From average speed of (d/2)/(t/2) = c and in present the expansion is bigger (more at more distance and present days) and how in final time is (d/2)/(t/3) = 1.5c (this would be at present) the speed would to be 1.5c to d/2.
3w.4 - According to homogeneity (expansion theory) the speed in d/2 would to be 1.5c and by that in d 2 x 1.5c and in d/4 would be 0.75c.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 07:08:37 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for what? All we've done is attack your REALLY BAD science and all you've done is ignore our responses only to post the exact same nonsense/nonscience. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 08:42:04 [Permalink]
|
I add 2 works more, probably more easy to understand:
4w - d/t=c in average.
We see objects at 13.7 billion light years, these objects are in distance at 13.7 billion light years and in time at 13.7 billion years, by that 13.7 distance/13.7 time = c = light speed = 1/1 . This give average of c.
According to theory double distance is double speed, but according by example:
1 hour - speed: 1 km/hour - distance 1 km
1/2 hour more - speed: 2 km/hour - distance 2 km - average is 2/1.5 = 1.33 km/hour // maximum is 2
1/2 hour more - speed: 4 km/hour - distance 4 km - average is 4/2 = 2 km/hour // maximum is 4
1/2 hour more - speed: 8 km/hour - distance 8 km - average is 8/2.5 = 3.2 km/hour // maximum is 8
None of theirs gives average of maximum speed
Only average speed is equal of maximum speed if the speed is constant.
By this expansion is impossible according to speed max= speed average and according to double distance is double speed
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5w - There is not form of double distance at double speed with speed incremented
According to the theory that says that at double distance is double speed and that speed is distance/time, at d/2 is c/2 and at d is c, how speed of d/2 is (d/2)/t, and d-(d/2) is d/2, need to expand at half time in the form (d/2)/(t/2), this is c, but c is average and not maximum, by that only at constant speed is possible.
In incremented is impossible because an average from 2 is by example 1.5 to 2.5, but 2.5 is not double that 1.
An example:
1 hour accelerating from 10 to 20 km/hour - speed final 20 km/hour - distance 15 km
1 hour accelerating from 20 to 40 km/hour - speed final 40 km/hour - distance 45 (30+15)
Really the relation is 4d is double speed
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Also I arrange 1w:
1w – The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory.
Resume: Expansion is from d/4 to d/2 (for example) with different speed (in d/4 expansion is half of d/2 according to the theory that relation distance and speed) and against this the lightspeed is always the same (constant speed): by this the light from d/4 arrive to us before to stay in d/2.
At double distance is double speed, according to the theory.
An example with d in 16 = c (lightspeed) and by that d/2 is 8
Light from d/2 need t/2 time to arrive to us, in the example d/4 (example 4) in t/2 is d/2, lightspeed is 16.
t/2 is 2 times t/4 - in t/4 light travel 4
first t/4 - light travel 4, distance with expansion is 3+
Light of d/4 in t/2 is d/2, in d/4 speed is (d/4)/t and in d/2 need to be double speed - this is another (d/4) in half time t/2 so (d/4)/t is half speed that (d/4)/(t/2) (increment is d/4
So a photon emitted in d/4 made t/2 time arrive to us t/2 time from d/2 according to the theory : double distance is double speed and d/2 is a c/2.
I divide in the example the time in t/8 so expand 1 and light travel 2 (according to the theory we can consider that in any t/8 expand 1, [really the first would be less because it's half speed], so 4t/8=t/2)
1º t/8 : 4 +1(expand) - 2 (light travel) = 3 distance (4 expand 1 in t/8)
2º t/8: 3 + 0.75 (expand) - 2 (light travel) = 1.75 - (here really would expand 1 in relation to 5, not 4)
3ª t/8 : 1.75+ 0.44 (1.75/4) - 2 (light travel) = 0.19 - (here really would expand 1 in relation to 6, not 4)
So light arrive in few more that 3t/8 and according to the theory arrive in 4t/8 = t/2
In this example not consider that a part of travel of light is not expanded or stretch, also that this light is near us and by that probably there is less stretch, ... and by that less time
A same photon cannot arrive in 2 different moments, by that the expansion theory is not possible.
Thanks and sorry by disturb you.
|
| Edited by - lbiar on 07/16/2010 08:42:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 11:41:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lbiar
We see objects at 13.7 billion light years, these objects are in distance at 13.7 billion light years and in time at 13.7 billion years... |
No, this is just plain wrong. The light that's traveled for 13.7 billion years came from objects that are now much farther than 13.7 billion light-years from us.According to theory double distance is double speed, but according by example:
1 hour - speed: 1 km/hour - distance 1 km
1/2 hour more - speed: 2 km/hour - distance 2 km - average is 2/1.5 = 1.33 km/hour // maximum is 2
1/2 hour more - speed: 4 km/hour - distance 4 km - average is 4/2 = 2 km/hour // maximum is 4
1/2 hour more - speed: 8 km/hour - distance 8 km - average is 8/2.5 = 3.2 km/hour // maximum is 8 |
No, none of these is an example based on "the theory." It's all wrong.5w - There is not form of double distance at double speed with speed incremented
According to the theory that says that at double distance is double speed and that speed is distance/time... |
No, this is the same wrong stuff as in 4w. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
lbiar
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2010 : 23:30:05 [Permalink]
|
| sorry . Error. |
| Edited by - lbiar on 11/20/2010 16:01:53 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2010 : 06:40:04 [Permalink]
|
| It's disturbing that you could spend so much time on an idea which you completely misunderstand. You are butchering every single concept of Expansion, stop embarassing yourself and go take a pre-freshmen cosmology class. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Universe expansion
