|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 30-3-2010 20:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 30-3-2010 18:11, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all
>>>>> red-shifted the farther they get from *us*? Or the fact that we
>>>>> seem to be the only creatures in the entire *universe* that
>>>>> broadcast radio signals?
>>>>
>>>> For the latter see the Drake equation.
>>>
>>> I'm familiar with it. What about it?
>>
>> All we know that there are no radio signals broadcasted from a place
>> exactly the right time ago to be just reaching us now, send towards
>> us, and in a format that we recognize. Which is quite a long way away
>> from a conclusion that no signals are send at all.
>
> Yes. Hence the "seems to". Anyway, you understand my point even if you
> disagree. :-)
yes
>>> Yep. That doesn't mean things are moving away from us. We can't
>>> measure whether they're moving away from us. All we can measure is
>>> the red shift. The assumption is that the red shift is caused by
>>> relative motion, and not the geometry of the universe.
>>
>> I don't understand that last sentence, but that may be my physics
>> background.
>
>
> We assume that the distant galaxies are red-shifted *because* they are
> moving away from us. We don't assume that the Milky Way has the lowest
> speed of light in the universe, or that time runs slower the farther you
> get from humanity, or that the gravitational constant is slowly
> increasing the farther you get from humanity. *If* you assume that all
> other places in the universe will see the same thing when they look
> around, *then* all the galaxies must be moving away from each other.
> *If* you assume we're in a unique and privileged place in the universe,
> there are all kinds of things that could be causing it.
hence my "We say that because we believe in Lorentz invariance" as a
abbreviation of a couple of paragraphs like the one above ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |