A Beautiful Threesome: Time, Entropy and The Big Bang

[Apotheosis]

@Wesker: the universe is not expanding at the same rate, but it is relative. The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

seems that you didnt really got whats the doppler effect



Edwin Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

[Syntax]

seems that you didnt really got whats the doppler effect



Edwin Hubble used the Doppler effect to determine that the universe is expanding. Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

Your have left out your point. You stated a nice little fact but I see no contradiction between the two unless you misinterpreted my statement.

[Apotheosis]

Your have left out your point. You stated a nice little fact but I see no contradiction between the two unless you misinterpreted my statement.

problem its, something might be far away and if hes not moving, theres no dopler effect.

The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

it should be the higher the frecuency on a moving object from point a to b, or something like that, and the speed of the expansion relative to the distance, the distance of what ??? world-world, galaxy-galaxy, wich if that was the growing speed, then the singularity never took place, you cant go from a-b-y-x-d-c-v, in other words, theres only 1 way to explain it, and it should be what i quoted from the doppler effect

Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

on physics you have to be very especific <_<, or some ashole like my self will point that out

[Luls]

Game, set, and match.

[Syntax]

problem its, something might be far away and if hes not moving, theres no dopler effect.

The speed of expansion is relative to the distance. The farther away the faster they are going.

it should be the higher the frecuency on a moving object from point a to b, or something like that, and the speed of the expansion relative to the distance, the distance of what ??? world-world, galaxy-galaxy, wich if that was the growing speed, then the singularity never took place, you cant go from a-b-y-x-d-c-v, in other words, theres only 1 way to explain it, and it should be what i quoted from the doppler effect

Hubble found that the light from distant galaxies was shifted toward lower frequencies, to the red end of the spectrum. This is known as a red Doppler shift, or a red-shift. If the galaxies were moving toward Hubble, the light would have been blue-shifted.

on physics you have to be very especific <_<, or some ashole like my self will point that out

The way you respond to others in general is why I gave you such a simplistic response. DarkstaR explained further on it.

[Apotheosis]

Game, set, and match.

a meme will make that a piece of art

The way you respond to others in general is why I gave you such a simplistic response. DarkstaR explained further on it.

darkstar gives hes own point of view on whatever you ask him, when its something based on science, i dont like to commit errors, and that happends very offen, if i try to explain it, not that darkstar its wrong, didnt really read that responce, but i belive theres nothing better to explain it than the doppler effect, and he could just say that "doppler effect", we get it....

anyways when you explain something, i need to understand it isnt it ?
and the way i explain it, its my lack of vocabulary, and for that i apologize, taking some classes , soon ill improve

[DarkstaR]

" in science theres no space for a belief "

Here's a video you posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WQaHVm6dp14

Go to 2:37, then 3:07

Once you stop contradicting yourself I'll start listening.. Oh wait, that's a paradox. So I'm done.

[Apotheosis]

Here's a video you posted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WQaHVm6dp14

Go to 2:37, then 3:07

Once you stop contradicting yourself I'll start listening.. Oh wait, that's a paradox. So I'm done.

i posted it for the content, some of them have to explain it like a belive, because people do not know whats "think" , you know this also, do you belief in science or do you acknowledge science, because if you belief in science then you might as well belief in god.

is not dificult to find contradictions in people, but you cant contradict the fact that i never used belief.

[Luls]

because if you belief in science then you might as well belief in god.

So if you believe in facts you should believe in thousands of year old stories?

[Apotheosis]

So if you believe in facts you should believe in thousands of year old stories?

i DONT BELIEF IN ANYTHING

atheist its a lack of belief in everything, i compare results and data, i do not belive i have a huge penis, i know it :X