Starlight

The trick is that even if we don't have a large baseline at this end (yet), we may well have a huge baseline at the other end. Stars are essentially point-source objects on the sky. Nearby galaxies are anything but. Turn up the brightnes on M31 (Andromeda), and you'll see that it is four times the width of the Moon! With an object that big, there's potentially lots of fun physics to done, such as with the maser of M106.

Yes, PRD and PLB are two of the most important journals for Theoretical Physics - probably the most prestigious is Nuclear Physics B (NPB). PRD does tend to get filled with plenty of crap, though.Variable speed of light theories (VSL) are nothing new. The albrecht paper is rather Mickey-Mouse in its approach - the ideas are ok but it is pure conjecture without any proposed mechanism - and the repeated use of "superluminal expansion" stinks of someone not quite getting it. Moffat is an old-timer, usually playing with fringe ideas. If you want to look at a modern paper on possible VSL (which is actually a variation in the fine structure constant, rather than c itself, as that is a fairly meaningless concept) then try this. Notice the observationally determined bounds on possible variation.

Hi RR - as Taq has already explained, stars within our Galaxy are in orbit about the Galactic core, and this massively dominates any effect of the Universal expansion. Likewise, neighbouring galaxies are far more affected by local gravitational effects than the expansion. You have to look past the Local Group of galaxies to start to see real evidence of the expansion.

Not under normal accelerative expansion - the gravitationally bound elements will stay gravitationally bound. This will probably extend as far as our own supercluster.The Big Rip scenario described by Oni is a "what if" scenario, where the dark energy component actually grows as the Universe expands, creating a divergent expansion. This would tear apart not just galaxies but eventually even nucleons! Interesting but pure speculation at this stage. The dark energy component could well decrease with expansion, such that gravitational attraction once again dominates, and the Universe could well collapse (given sufficient density.)

Not a chance Moving with us where? Don't think of the Milky Way being carried in some direction by the expansion, moving away from some "central" point. As far as we are concerned, the expansion is purely away from us, and we are at the centre of the expansion. Every other galaxy in the Universe thinks the same, and this preserves the symmetry of the expansion. We have travelled no-where. We have always been at the centre. As has every other galaxy. The centre has just grown quite a bit! M31 is not moving away at all - it is moving towards us and will collide at some point.

Careful. Dark energy is merely that which is causing the expansion to accelerate. The expansion would still occur even if there was no dark energy. Expansion is simply what you get with a homogeneous isotropic distribution of mass.

1) The Universe does not exceed the speed of light, in the same way that roads tend not to exceed speed limits.2) The only sense that inflation has anything to do with exceeding the speed of light, is exactly the same sense that the normal everyday expansion of the Universe 'exceeds the speed of light' - so inflation has nothing to do with what you are trying to say.3) Inflation covers a huge body of work, from original hypothesis, through multiple theories, and onto the discovery of compelling evidence consistent with a number of the theories; where-as... is your own wishful thinking. The speed of light has not measurably changed* in the past 13 billion years, and we can tell this from direct observation. You quote Barrow, so have a look at his own work on the possible variation of alpha* over the course of the Universe.*when I speak of changing the speed of light, I'm implying a changing alpha.

No - it's complex and I just put that in for any other scientists who happen to read it. It doesn't matter No, it hasn't, although I admit it is often reported in this way. The speed of light is always the same. When it appears slow in air, water, glass, etc, all that is happening is that photons are being abosrbed and re-emitted by the constituents of the medium through which the light is passing. This absorption and re-emission takes time, and makes it appear that light is slowed. But the photons travel from emission event to absorption event at the normal speed of light. In 'delayed' light experiments, the same thing is happening, with just an extended period between absorption and re-emission.In 'faster-than-light' experiments, it is the shape of a light pulse that appears to move faster than light, not the individual photons. They all still travel at the speed of light. Thought experiments and laymans' terms are fine but they are not an excuse to just make up shit... Many of us believe, and certain ideas/theories strongly suggest, that there are not only multiple 'universes' but multiple types of multiple universes.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Rest assured, I have taught enough undergrads, grads, and PhDs big bang comsology, relativity, string theory, etc. I think I'm just about qualified for you So quit with your shit - you really have no clue about any of this, evidenced by your idiocy regarding the speed of light. If you are not interested in learning, then everyone here will just give you the respect you deserve...

I couldn't give a shit what you think about my 'claims' - everyone here has seen more than ample evidence - but I am very interested in these 'mistakes'. I am impressed that someone not trained in science is able to spot any that I have made. Care to point any of them out? Or are you just another pseudo-Christian who thinks that lies and bullshit are perfectly acceptable on the internet, 'cos Jesus probably won't read it anyway...ABE with your ideas on light, those would have to be some peers...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

The Big Bang certainly gives rise to an effective multitude of universes by way of Inflation. The Observable Universe constitutes only a tiny fraction of the entire Universe, and it is quite possible, if not inevitable, that widely separated volumes of the Universe will have differing physics to some extent, as they have never been in causal contact with each other.But then, why would you even need to argue with something as stupid and obviously flawed as the KCA?

Is an entirely appropriate statement. We may be using the word universe to discuss "observable universe"-like volumes of the entire Lambda-CDM space-time, or that entire space-time. We may be using it in the context of chaotic inflation and similar scenarios, where we have an eternal bubbling or nucleation of "universes". We may be thinking of elements of a higher dimensional space, such as in supergravity and string theory, where our universe could be just one of a myriad of spaces of widely varying dinmensionality and physics. All of these have been discussed in the popular literature, and asking which of these are possible in the context of Big Bang comsology is entirely sensible. It would also be prudent to ask by what one means as Big Bang comsology - just plain old FRW or modern lambda-CDM. I cannot think why anyone would think of bringing up the Godel space-time in this context - it is uttrly irrelevant to cosmology at the level of this discussion and is pure distraction. The idea that the meaning placed on 'a universe' is obvious is exceptionally naive. I think you may have some serious learning of your own first. Amateur astronomy is no basis for a serious discussion on comsology, as you are finding. Despite the fact that I happened to start out as a professional astronomer, none of my cosmological/theoretical-physics peers had a clue as to the advanatges of a Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain over a Schmidt Cassegrain...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.