*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« on: September 19, 2019, 07:53:49 PM »
Just a few of question for the FE community on this topic.

What does flat earth have to say about the expansion of the universe?

Is this expansion consistent with the concept that the celestial bodies are small and nearby?

How does flat earth hypothesis account for blue shifted galaxies?  Their velocities towards us can be considerable (up to 714 miles/s) and if they were only thousands of miles away they would pass by us in mere seconds.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2019, 03:00:33 AM »
The "expanding universe" is part of man's denial that he is at the center of the universe. See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmological_Principle

Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2019, 08:18:41 AM »
The "expanding universe" is part of man's denial that he is at the center of the universe. See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmological_Principle
It's part of man's developing and increasing understanding of the universe over time. It's based on pretty good evidence

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/626-how-is-it-proved-that-the-universe-is-expanding-intermediate

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2019, 05:30:46 PM »
That link is wrong. The redshifts are not doppler shifts in the expanding universe explanation. They changed it to something else; the metric expansion of space:

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/25/1/25-1-trimble.pdf --

“ Everybody is occasionally tempted to think in terms of matter expanding from a point or small region into previously existing space. This is the wrong image. The space itself is expanding and carrying the matter with it. The redshifts we see are not Doppler shifts, caused by relative motion through space, but are rather the stretching out of wavelengths with the metric they propagate on. ”

“ If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. ”
                  —Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.

Stephen Hawking says there is no scientific evidence for this hypothesis:

  “ ...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."

There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe. ”
                  —Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 44

No scientific evidence. Believed only on grounds of modesty.

Edwin Hubble:

  “ Such a condition [the red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.

Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations.

The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position.

But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. ”
                  — E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 05:39:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline katrex

  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2019, 02:09:02 AM »
Speaking of redshifts.... if the earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s  And has been for phew... a very very long time. How has the change in stelar redshift confirmed FE theory? HAs anyone done the equations? because as far as I can tell, Stars that are further away from us are more redshifted than those closer to us, but surely the closer ones should be getting less redshifted over time as we approach them?

Also surely we're traveling very close to lightspeed by this point... Why isnt random space dust incinerating our world on collision. Hmm maybe I better stop thinking this is getting very disturbing.

Wait whats powering this acceleration? is there a giant rocket booster on the back of the earth? Has anyone gone to check what's underneath?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 559
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2019, 03:01:38 PM »
The "expanding universe" is part of man's denial that he is at the center of the universe. See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmological_Principle
Nothing in that link suggests the universe is not expanding.  Neither does your reply address my questions.  Do you want to take another shot at it?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

*

Offline bobbyflay

  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Chef
    • View Profile
Re: Expansion of the universe and the relative motion of galaxies
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2019, 05:27:01 AM »

Also surely we're traveling very close to lightspeed by this point... Why isnt random space dust incinerating our world on collision. Hmm maybe I better stop thinking this is getting very disturbing.

Wait whats powering this acceleration? is there a giant rocket booster on the back of the earth? Has anyone gone to check what's underneath?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions

dark energy and aetheric wind.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.