So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...you can just make a broad claim (ala the Austrian Emperor to Mozart with "too many notes" as his reason for disliking the opera).
So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...you can just make a broad claim (ala the Austrian Emperor to Mozart with "too many notes" as his reason for disliking the opera).
Ok, it's clear that you do not understand the difference between space and matter. Yes, space is expanding. Yes, the solar system is relatively static. The force that hold the bodies of the solar system is strong enough to hold them together, despite the expansion of the fabric of space.
This is where you err, you see. Our solar system is moving within our local galaxy, which is, in turn, moving within the local galactic cluster, which is moving, in turn, in relationship to other galactic clusters.
All of this is happening in an expanding space. The interaction between space itself and matter is not clearly defined, but it is a relatively weak force, compared to the gravitational force.
So, your example of an expanding space, contrasted to a (relatively) static local arrangement of matter, is irrelevant. The gravitational force is what keeps matter relatively static in local groupings, while space expands willy-nilly, as it were.
So you claim...yet you can't specify any one part of my textual explanation that was in error...
Just about all of it, actually. You just made a lot of claims you didn't even attempt to support (apparently they're just based on your own presumptions, which you mistake for established fact), and revealed a lot of basic misconceptions you have about physics.
But since all attempts to get you to "show your math" have been met with your usual brand of evasions and excuses and insults (in all my time watching you on these threads, that's *all* I've seen you do when asked to do any mathematical at all -- I have yet to see you produce any beyond basic arithmatic), here, let's turn it around -- feel free to explain, "textually" or otherwise, where the following might be in error (since it must be, if your "textual" ramblings are correct): The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems.
(Now *that's* math...) Feel free to explain how, why, and *specifically* where, you find a flaw in it. Because it makes sense to me.
Also, feel free to explain why, exactly, when most people encounter something counterintuitive in an established field of science, would think to themselves, "hmm, that doesn't make sense to me, but since thousands of physicists have worked on this over the past decades and don't seem to find a fundamental flaw in it, maybe I'm just misunderstanding it and should ask some questions to clarify the matter", instead *you* consistently and reflexively think, "hey, I don't see how that could work, so without any doubt, 'THE THEORY IS HOOEY'..." Really, please explain this to me -- what sort of mental state leads to such public exhibitions of ludicrous presumptuousness?
Or -- and I ask this in all seriousness because I often consider it a very real possibility whenever I see you participate in a physics thread and I'd really like to know -- are you just trolling?