I would say that they are mathematically equivalent, that is, the "recessional velocity" figures work out the same, but conceptually they are definitely different. In reality, either the distant galaxies are all streaming through space away from us, the further the faster, OR it's the space between us and them that is expanding. It's one or the other. There is no sensical reason that the more distant galaxies would be traveling through space away from us at proportionately higher velocities. But if we consider that the space itself is expanding, then it makes perfect sense.

(I'm not sure if it was "Einstein and Minkowski" who personally called for this change of viewpoint. It seems the doppler interpretation was still held after Einstein's death, and only more recently did astronomers realize the "apparent doppler effect" was due directly to the effect of the expansion of space on the wavelength of the light that was traveling through the expanding space.)

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Didn't anyone else see that? Thats the funniest thing I've seen all day - not to mention the most arrogant


I told this story in another thread: when I was in high school, there was something I learned in math that I thought was wrong and I argued with the teacher about it for quite a while. But then I realized that many people much smarter than me had come up with the equation or method I was arguing against, so I stopped arguing and began looking for the flaw in my own reasoning.

The standard model of physics is popular for a reason, snow - it works better than any other model yet concieved. Your arguements against it come mostly from a misunderstanding of what it says.

Hi Russ watters

In response to my assertion I have figured out a very important relationship that describes the expansion of space you responded
“Didn't anyone else see that? Thats the funniest thing I've seen all day - not to mention the most arrogant”

First, I am impressed with how little it takes to make you laugh. You must be a very happy person.

Second, review your message to me and consider who is being arrogant. You do not know what I have done, nor do you know my background, or my education. You do not even know what my theory is and how well it is validated.

Regarding your belief the present model works I would have serious issues with. Quantum physics and general relativity are incompatible descriptions of the universe and they comprise the standard model. There is no viable theory that explains galaxy formation. I listed also several other issues that I think illustrate problems. You are invited to prove me wrong.

Oh yes. When I argued with my teachers. I usually convinced them I was right.

snowflake

Did you actually convince them you were right, or did they just get sick of arguing with you, realize they can't win and just concede your point?

But you're right, we don't know you, your background or your education. That doesn't mean much though. Sure we can't assume that you're just making up a lot of BS, but it also means we can't assume you hold a PhD in the relevant subject and thus give your discussions more weight.

You need to give the information about you that you deem relevant to the discussion. Otherwise some people are just going to assume you've got another crackpot theory, are misunderstanding some important concept or one of the other typical reactions we have when someone challenges widely accepted theories.

Yes, GR and QP are currently incompatible, but everyday we work torwards solving that. You can't just disregard either theory, because they both work. Both theories have passed every test thrown at them. One day we'll find a way to reconcile them into a Grand Unified Theory, but I doubt we'll just up and over turn either one.

Luckily we have our very own astronomer here, and if he knows what's good for him he'll jump in and set things straight.

j/k

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Ok.... Enlighten us. Tell us of your background, education, theory, and how well it is validated.

It really bothers me when people post their own theories on the board and make statemenst like, "you don't know my education" instead of just giving reasons why they are qualified authorities on the subject, or not.

String theory solves the problems between QM and GR. Brian Greene, a well known authority on string theory and author of The Elegant Universe, once said, "Not only does string theory make relativity and quantum mechanics compatible, it does so in a way that makes them need echother to work."

However, that's hardly the point. They are just theories that govern two seperate shperes of physics. Or, are you making the argument that one or the other or both are incorrect completely because they are not yet fully compatible(except for string theory)?

That's mostly limitations in today's technology. We don't yet have the supercomputerse required to perform the calculations necessary, but there really is no reason to believe that galaxies won't spring from already existent theories.

You're not open to the evidence we are giving you. We are proving you wrong, you just don't want to hear it. And, I know that sounds harsh, and I would rephrase it if I knew of a better way to say it, but that's the only way I can say it.

Give us examples, and what people they have been teaching. i.e. High-school, College... etc.

He's likely to jump in and lock the thread! Remember that he looks down on attacking the theorist and not the theory. Tell him why his thinking is wrong, because what you are arguing is a very common fallicy: his theories are wrong because I don't like the theorist. For instance, I disagree with Marxism, but I don't disagree with Marxism because I think Marx was an idiot (Although, I do think he was...).

I wasn't really attacking him. I was just countering his argument that since we don't know anything about his background, we can't dismiss his theory.

My point was the counter, since we know nothing of his background, we also can't assign it MORE weight because of it.

For example, if the BA comes in and says something nonobvious about astronomy, knowing his education, current profession and whatnot, we're likely to believe, or put more weight on what he says.

However if *I* came in and said the same thing first, as a computer scientist, you would (justifiably) put less emphisis on what I said.

By quote about the BA jumping in was more along the lines of "jump in and tell us if he, as an astronomer, is doing what snowflake claims astronomers are doing". Not "jump in and prove me right".

Sorry if I didn't make my point clear. The part I said about "crackpot theories" was a crude attempt at both humor and how many of us look at people/theories that go against the mainstream. I was in no way, or at least not meaning to, call snowflake's theory (or him) crackpot. ops:

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Sorry, that was my fault for misinterpreting too. ops:

So, you're a computer scientist?????!!!!!! That's my major! This is my freshman semester, but I'm really enjoying it already (learning java).

I disagree. Although we don't have sufficient observations to really constrain the possible models well, I have seen simulations that can show development of the filament structures that galaxies seem to form in, that match pretty well with observations. We indeed don't know enough about this, and a great deal of further study will be needed, but your statement implies that we just have no idea and it must be magic, and that's just not the case.

Yes! Quantum mechanics defies my intuition that the basic particles that we're composed of should behave like ordinary objects. And who would have thought before relativity theory that time and space aren't absolute, but need to be defined based on how you are moving? My intuition tells me that the tables in front of me is solid, but my understanding of atomic structure instead tells me that there would be plenty of space for the particles in my hand to pass right by the particles of the table, were it not for the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the atoms making up my hand and the table. Science contradicts my intuition all the time. Of course, after working with a theory for a while, I develop a new intuition of how quantum objects behave, or of how relatvistic effects might change my perceptions of things.

If there were such a theory, I probably would consider it. However, the fact that the really weird predictions of quantum mechanics and relativity have been well confirmed by experiment means that any rival theory will have to make these same counterintuitive predictions, or it cannot possibly be true.

Our intuition is developed from our experiences in life with macroscopic objects moving at relatively slow speeds. It was probably also shaped by the evolution of our ancestors, who needed to be able to model the world in such a way that they could successfully find food, protect themselves from the environment, and avoid getting eaten by predators. It works quite well for these purposes, by why should we really expect it to still hold on scales far removed from the situations it was developed to cope with?

We spent a bit of time discussing that here. Any matter that's far enough away so that the light from it hasn't reached us in the lifetime of the universe cannot have any effects on any of the matter that we can see. That is, it can have an effect on that distant galaxy, just at the edge, but we won't have seen that gravitational effect yet, because the effect still has to reach us at lightspeed. That's just breaking up the trip into two segments, and we already know that the signal can't get here in the lifetime of the universe.

Now, as the universe expands, it would be theoretically possible for the "sphere of influence" to move outward fast enough to overtake things that used to be beyond it so that eventually we would see those effects. However, since it seems that the expansion is accelerating (in spite of your contentions that it's not), I think it ends up the reverse, that the most distant objects actually pass beyond that boundary, and although they might have been able to affect us up until that point, once they cross the boundary, they can no longer have any causal effect that we will witness.

Now, you claim to have a theory that will explain things better than the existing models used by astronomers and cosmologists. Why don't you tell us what it is and how well it's validated? You can expect us to try to find flaws in it, of course , but a robust theory should be able to withstand that.

Not to get too off-topic, but forget Java Learn C++ and Visual Basic.NET. Some DHTML and SQL will help as well and learning how to use XML is good too.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Thats a well known limitation in relativity /the standard model which has very little to do with what you have presented here. And the limitation does not affect how successful it has been when used for what it is good at. Pi, I'd settle for just a little explanation of his "theories." Though it helps, you don't need a resume to prove you know what you're talking about.

From what I've heard so far, I don't know what would convince me that he is qualified to make such statements but an account of his education, and I'm not sure that that will do it.

Again, this is a pretty easy thing to clear up. He theory is based on several mistakes astronomers make.

Well, this site happens to be owned and operated by an astronomer. So if we keep at this long enough, he's bound to do a quick read to make sure we're not getting out of control and maybe he'll even confirm/deny snowflakes list of mistakes that he's making.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Grey wrote ; "And who would have thought before relativity theory that time and space aren't absolute, but need to be defined based on how you are moving?"

This is what Newton wrote -

"Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same"

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

Heliocentric modelling based on the Earth orbiting the Sun involves accurate intepretations of geocentric observations which make the Sun appear to rotate around the Earth.Newton did not wish to call the Sun's and planets motion across the sky an 'illusion' so he called it relative space instead.These relative motions of the Sun and the primary planets are valid up to a point insofar as they can be translated into true motion around the Sun rather than the relative motions which appear to make the planets rotate around the Earth from our point of view.

An intelligent person who has an interest in astronomy will get Newton's point not only with absolute/ relative space but also absolute/ relative motion,as all celestial motion of relative space (geoccentric observations) and absolute space (true heliocentric motion) are based on cyclical orbital motions it follows that trying to make sense of the structure and motions of the primary planets with only relative motions is idiotic,it is like trying to make sense of the traffic on the street.

Newton explained the Equation of Time as the difference between absolute time and relative time,basically the way we define a day

relative time = natural unequal day

absolute time = 24 hour equal day

Difference between absolute and relative time = Equation of Time

To tamper with Newton's definitions of time,space and motion is a fools game,anyone who bothers to read the original text may initially find it ambiguous and the archaic language does not help but it is well worth the effort to disentangle these poor relativistic intepretations that have no idea what he meant by absolute and relative nor the celestial cyclical qualities that all astronomers in Newton's era relied on and are part of the definitions.

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion." Principia

Shall we keep the discussion civil?

Newton was, indeed, a brilliant man, and the Principia is an impressive work. However, it's also clear that the predictions from his theories clash with observations, hence the development of relativity, which provides better agreement with reality.

I know you consider the Equation of Time to be very important, but it's really a tool of very limited utility. It allows calculation of the difference between solar time (which varies due to the movement of the Earth) and time as measured by clocks (which are now ultimately controlled by specific atomic transition frequencies rather than being tied to the motion of the Earth), but beyond that has no particular significance. Whether you were using solar time or "clock time", you would still observe relativistic effects in the passage of time.

I hope we haven't scared off snowflakeuniverse.

Hi Pi Man,

The cosmological or recessional red shift is different from a standard Doppler shift The best evidence of this is revealed when considering energy. General Relativity asserts that as the photon travels through an expanding space time field it’s wavelength is increased, and energy is lost. General Relativity violates the conservation of energy “laws” when it comes to the recessional red shift in that there is no thermal heating of something else. I know you will not believe me but it is true. (Since I believe in General Relativity I also agree that this energy is “lost”.) This is in contrast with the energy loss due to a Doppler shift since the energy loss is imparted or added as soon as the photon leaves the moving atom.

When I bring this fact about the lost of energy of a photon to an Astrophysicist, they ignore the conflict with special relativity and the “stopping of time” at speeds equal to the speed of light. They just allow the issue to remain or resolve it based on the application of General Relativity. Since the mathematics can get involved regarding this, it ends up being a discussion of assumptions. Whatever assumptions one assumes, allows each party to be right.

Where I usually try to take this line of topic when discussing the issue with a real physicist leads to Problem #5.

If a photon looses energy with the expansion of space, shouldn’t mass also loose energy?

If I converted a mass into light energy, energy is lost due to the expansion of space. Since E=mcc shouldn’t what happens on one side of the energy equation be valid for the other? Doesn’t that mean mass looses energy? If not then E does not equal mcc in all situations. I am accused of confusing two different situations, after all how could a rock in some cold dark region of space loose energy? In my model even matter itself looses energy with the expansion of space. I know it violates the conservation of energy principle, but since the rate of energy loss is so slow, it is only detectable over very long periods of time, millions or billions of years. This loss of energy with the expansion of space predicted by my theory is what is commonly called “dark energy”. The source of dark energy is not out side of our universe, it is from our universe.

(Note, this is a formula driven theory)

snowflake

Background of Snowflake

I am 53 years old, and graduate with a degree with Honors from the University of Connecticut, also a member of Tau Beta Pi, the national honor society for Engineers. . My major was Structural Analysis but I have a fair background in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. I also have taken some upper level course in tensor mathematics but never finished my Graduate Degree, life kind of got in the way.

When I was a sophomore at Uconn, a problem would haunt me regarding the dimensional “imbalance” between Gravitational and Inertial Forces. For the last 20 or so years I would try various dimensional configurations of space and time to resolve the issue. About 5 years ago I made a discovery about the nature of the expansion of space that resolved the dimensional problem and which also established very important relationships about the mathematical description of nature. Since then I have been dedicated to trying to have the theory seriously reviewed. I also have had to spend the last few expanding my knowledge of astrophysics. So far I have had a “professional grad student” with a PhD in physics review the theory, He concurs that the model is mathematically correct, but he still does not think it is right. I had a rejection from a physics journal, and the response was, “this theory is too simple to be true”. If it were so simple, it should be simple to prove where I am wrong. It is fairly easy for me to show how the current models are wrong or at least incomplete and inconsistent, which is what I tried to do with the previous examples.

Also, regarding the first time I convinced my teacher that I was right was in 6th grade. It was a mathematics problem regarding the invalidity of dividing a number by 0. I asserted that if infinity were allowed to exist, (as taught in class and represented in the math book) then division by 0 must exist. Divide 1 by 1 and get 1, divide 1 by .1 and get 10, as the divisor approaches 0 the result approaches infinity. It is only when the divisor equals 0 does the result equal infinity. Of course this eventually leads to other problems where 0 can equal 1 or to or anything, which seems impossible. I therefore thought that infinity is just an abstraction, just as 0 must be. (But then again, if the entire universe started from nothing, then even this would be ok.) The teacher and the class thought that my arguments were valid, and the association between infinity and 0 were important. If 0 exists, then infinity exists. Of course a mathematician would take issue with this, particularly one who bases proofs based upon rules and then makes conclusions upon those rules. Mathematicians have a lot of rules about infinities, which are interesting to consider, such as, not all infinities are equal, some are bigger than others, but I digress. To avoid a big conflict with a lot of people, let’s just leave this as“ You can not divide by 0,” I have got to try and choose my battles.

snowflake

Thanks --- for your interest in my theory, or at least arguing for the right to present ideas in the forum.

I should also thank the staff of Bad Astronomy for the form. I also think it would be kind of neat if a major advance in physics came not from some academic but from an amateur whose voice would only be found on the internet.

Imagine what it is like for me.

Trying to have my theory seriously considered has been one of the most frustrating events to endure in my life. Imagine that one day you discover an important relationship that is on the scale of the relationships discovered by Kepler or Newton. Imagine that everyone you try to tell the theory to assumes you are a “crack pot” without even considering the theory. Imagine every person of an academic background “shuns” you. Professors will ignore you, (“I must get 40 of these (theories) a year, I just made up my mind not to look at them”) Emails and phone calls will be left with no response. (Although I must thank George E. Hrabovsky of the Society of Amateur Scientists for his conclusion that the theory was “mathematically consistent”. George writes a regular column called "From the Mind of a Theorist” in the Society’s electronic magazine .) Anyways, I am truly appreciative of the opportunity given here, and am especially thankful for the responses.

snowflake.

Your credentials and history are interesting. However, I'd be interested in looking at your theory on its merits. So, what is it, exactly?

No energy is lost! As space stretches, it causes the light to be spread out over more space (or time, depending on how you look at it). As you watch a receeding white light which is on for t seconds from it's own POV, and emits an amount of energy per second, e, e*t is the amount of energy it emits during the whole time. e'*t' is the amount of energy you recieve from it (let's say that the beam of light from it is parallel and you can collect and measure all of it). e decreases as space stretches the light beam, but t increases because the length of the beam increases, and thus the time it takes you to take in the whole beam increases. So, e decreases to e', and t increases t'. However, e*t=e'*t'. This explination is also applicable to the Doppler effect.

There is no real "imparting" going on with the Doppler shift at all. If you happen to have the same velocity as the atom emitting the light, you don't see any shift at all, so the Doppler effect also depends on the reciever (observer). The Doppler effect is just due to looking at the same situation from two (or more) different perspectives, in different states of constant motion.

Why is the "stopping of time" at the speed of light a conflict? What says that that isn't possible?

Energy is never lost unless converted into mass. The expansion of space does not cause the loss/gain of energy. That invalidates the rest of the question.

That isn't a plausible explination for the dark energy. Dark energy is a positive amount (even source) of energy causing the expansion of the universe to speed up. If the expansion of space actually did cause energy to decrease (which it does not), and our space is expanding, we would be loosing energy, not gaining it. We are looking for a source of energy, not something to get rid of it.

Ok, then. Hit us with some formulas!

That isn't enough to give you a good background in cosmology, astrophysics, GR/SR, etc... (although that is really impressive! )

Can you tell me more about the "dimensional 'imbalance' between Gravitational and Inertial Forces?" I probably know what you're talking about, I just haven't heard it by that name.

Have you taken this up with a calculus teacher? One can define infinity as:

One can define negative infinity as:

So:

Does not exist, because that would require that:

Since one equals infinity, and the other equals negative infinity, they don't equal eachother. There is not even a way to say that:

I know how you feel. I recently had a really sound, mathematical theory which explained a lot. GR and SR fell right out of it (and I've since found other reasons why they did). I contacted the author of a favorite book of mine, and he refered me to a graduate student at Columbia University. It turned out that he was on a Mac, so it was pretty hard to get the document that I had written about my theory to him, giving me time to question him a little bit first. This turned out to be really helpful later on, because a lot of my mistakes had already been taken care of before he even recieved the document.

I would suggest that you contact someone that is willing to give you some time, and ask a few questions, gain his/her respect, before you give him/her your whole theory.

[math hijack]

Ahem…

Which does not mean that you were…

Why is that?

The result of what?

Certainly. All numbers are abstractions.

Are there any mathematicians who don’t?

It isn’t a rule that we “have”. We prove that it is so.

[/math hijack]

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

Just a few notes about infinity and 0
If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity.
Note that this is different than
If 1/x = y then as x approaches 0, y = infinity.
I prefer the first equation; calculus uses the second, as illustrated by Pi Man.
Once the second equation is assumed, one must adopt the rule that you cannot divide by 0.
If one assumes the first equation, then 0 and infinity do not exist. (At least not in our reality, or at least until the end of time). This was proved by Pi Man when he showed that a negative infinity would equal a positive infinity, which is even stronger than the result I mentioned which is that 0 = 1, 2 or any number.

The reason I state that the first relationship is a more valid expression, is that it conforms to the physical reality of our universe. Granted one can set up any set of rules, but the best ones are the ones that actually correspond to our reality.

The reason I assert that there is no true 0 and no infinity in our reality is because of the quantum nature at the smallest intervals of observation. The smallest distance that it is possible to measure is the Planck distance, which is 1.61 x 10^(-35) meters. The smallest interval of time is 5.391 x 10^(-44) seconds. Since it is impossible to measure any intervals smaller than this, than this represents a true limit. For a relationship described by a/x = y , the smallest value x can take must be either a Planck distance or Planck time. Y will be very big, but never infinity. There is no 0 or no infinity that is possible to measure in our reality.

There is one caveat. If there is no possible way to discern one state from another, then there is no way to measure distance or time, so whatever the dimensional association with a relationship described by 1/x = y then x now takes on the value of 0. This, according to my unorthodox “definition”, is the only time that infinity is reached , y = infinity. This also results in the weird relationships pointed out by Pi Man (- infinity = + infinity or as I stated 0 = 1, 2 or any number. This makes no sensed in our reality, but it does make sense in terms of the recreation of the universe itself. Out of nothing everything is possible 0 = 1. )

It is with a fair amount if trepidation that I make this post on this topic since it is more philosophical than fact. I think it is also important to note that this is the kind of thinking I was doing in sixth grade. Rather than just accept the “rules” “you can not divide by 0”, I figured out an example which showed that in one math problem, when a number is divided by 0, infinity is reached. If the divisor is anything short of 0, the result will always be short of infinity. The next posts will be more on topic.

One quick thought about what I associate with the word “abstractions”. Abstractions do not have to physically exist, numbers can be abstractions or represent reality. I can have 1 apple, 2 apples or even 0 apples. Here the numbers have a “real” meaning, but by themselves 1, and 2 are abstractions. A mathematician is comfortable with abstractions; an amateur theoretical physicist is more comfortable with reality.

snowflake

Hi Pi Man
I knew you would not believe me that General Relativity does not conform to the conservation of energy principle. If you check out the following link you will see postings about this topic written by those who you may feel are better sources than I am about general relativity.

http://sciastro.astronomy.net/ This will lead to frequently asked questions. I have pasted the following information from this site.

If you abandon for a moment the idea of a wave description of light, (which is another faulty or mistaken description physicists associate with light) and consider light as a particle, then it becomes clearer how the energy is lost. If 10 photons are traveling in an expanding space time field, there will always be 10 photons traveling through this space time field. As these 10 photons travel through an expanding spacetime field, their wavelengths will be increased. The energy of the 10 photons is greatest when they first start out, and the energy is diminished as the 10 photons travel through the expanding space. When the 10 photons are finally observed, the energy will be less than when they started. Where did the energy go?

(The answer as to where the energy went can be made by using a typical relativistic description. The universe is like a balloon, as the balloon stretches, the energy contained is diminished. A balloon with a specific amount of air has energy in it when the surface of the balloon is tight, or the air inside is compressed. If the rubber in the balloon is relaxed, the balloon increases in size and the energy contained within the balloon is diminished. So the energy is not actually gone, it becomes part of the expansion of space. )

Now I think the point about the mistakes of astronomy regarding the cosmlogial red shift is clearer. First, since a photon travels at the speed of light, then time “stands still” for the photon. (If the twin traveling at the speed of light does not age, how can the photon traveling at the speed of light change”?)

Those who know general relativity respond with arguments that are based upon a model of the universe that has space curved, which forces the photons to lose energy. I agree with this in principle, despite how incomplete general relativity is as a theory. The issue then becomes the inconsistency of a description of a universe that allows energy of photons to lose energy with the expansion of space-time, yet it exempts the loss of energy associated with matter. This was illustrated by the E = mcc argument. Re stating it another way. Start with two equal masses. Turn one to electromagnetic energy. Now, supposedly, only the electromagnetic energy is lost over time, the energy associated with the mass is not diminished. This is flawed, the loss of energy with the expansion of space is uniform. Even mass losses energy with the expansion of space. There is no differentiation between local and global, the effect is uniform. It is the only way that E= mcc can be valid for both situations, (energy as light and energy as a mass). otherwise provisions need to be placed on E=mcc.

I stated that this loss of energy is the supposed “dark energy”. Just as a car accelerates using the energy within its gas tank, so too does the expansion of space occur by using the energy found within its existing structure.

snowflake

But it does conform to the conservation of mass/energy principal. Energy can be lost, but only if mass is generated. Mass can be lost, but only if energy is generated.

I can't seem to make the link work. Can you re-check it, please? I'd like to see more of the conversation.

A wave description of light is not a falicy. Light exibits every property that any other wave does. (ie. diffusion, interference, etc...) One can't even view it as a particle (photons) unless one is trying to measure the particle properties of it.

There's no way to say that the 10 photons have been 10 photons since they left the source. QM 101 says that the light has no state at all, let alone a specific number of photons in the beam, until you measure it.

Well, light is known to exert a little bit of pressure. I doubt it would be enough to account for the amount by which the universe's expansion has increased.

You recently asserted that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating at all. The dark energy is the hypothetical source of energy that is causing the accelerating expansion. Are you now admitting that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? :-k

As you watch a photon, what you percieve as it's direction of motion, it percieves as it's time dimension. It is traveling through time, but it's time dimension is one of your spacial dimensions.

The expansion of space does not cause the loss of any energy. See above.

Again, you earlier stated that the expansion was not accelerating. Are you recanting that?

I notice that you did not reply to my questions. I won’t push it, because this side conversation is indeed bordering on the off-topic, although it does serve to test your ability to theorize.

About your latest post:

It is indeed different. The first sentence is true; the second is false. But I’ve never seen or read a mathematician using the second sentence.

I think you misinterpreted Pi Man’s post. You had written before:

He was trying to show you why this is not true.

What Pi Man showed was that there is no consistent way to define 1 divided by zero in the usual framework of basic calculus. This means that a particular relation between two entities cannot be defined. It does not mean that those entities do not exist.

That would mean that a car can never stop moving, since it can’t have zero velocity…

Or that a box of chocolates can’t be empty, because it can never have zero chocolates…

Or that a company can never go bankrupt, because it can’t own zero dollars…

I think you’re forgetting that physics – quantum physics, specifically – is not the only science that uses math. No science uses the whole of mathematics, but just because a concept may not make sense in your field, it doesn’t mean that it can’t occur in another field of science.

I think it’s wonderful that you were able to think outside the box at that age. But your 6th grade impressions on infinity – and zero – should have been revised when you took calculus.

The worse that can happen is the BA scolding us for getting off-topic. Then we’ll stop the conversation. But, since you wrote posts like this one earlier in this thread, I think it’s worth exploring your ability to spot mistakes in science a bit.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

I agree that this should be discussed further, but this isn't the place.

BTW, I once reasoned out that if one obtained the speed of light, he would have an equal chance of going foreward and backward in time. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Beats me! I forgot a long time ago!

Perhaps you're right.
There is a wrong assumption in snowflakeuniverse's reasoning, which I have pointed out, but both he and you seem to prefer not to pursue the matter, and I agree that it is marginal.
I will just direct snowflakeuniverse to two websites, that I hope will give him a better perspective on the issue:

Does infinity exist?

Division by zero.