Re: The size of the universe <= 14E+9 light years

On Sep 29, 3:59 pm, catHORME...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Cates) wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:59:17 -0000, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx>
posted:

On Sep 29, 12:35 am, catHORME...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Cates) wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:15:26 -0000, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx>
posted:

On Sep 27, 1:19 pm, Jack Dominey <l...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In <1190653524.104789.89...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ken Denny

<k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Therefore no two points in the
universe can be more than 14E+9 light years apart.

Take a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size
andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions.

I was impressed by the following comment from the article:

"Those galaxies are now about 46 billion light-years from us, but at
the time the light was emitted, that matter was only about 40 million
light-years away from the matter that would eventually become the
Earth. See comoving coordinates."

If that is correct then the universe has been expanding at a rate
that is effectively well over 99% the speed of light. I must admit
to some skepticism.

I'm curious how you calculate a 'rate of expansion' from within the
thing that is expanding. Can you show me your calculations?

Part of the statement was:

... at the time the light was emitted, that matter was only about
40 million light-years away ...

So if the universe had not been expanding it would have taken
40,000,000 years for the light to reach "earth". It actually
took say 12,000,000,000 years, which is 300 times "too long".
So the EFFECTIVE (I used the word "effectively") rate of
expansion looks like 99.66% that of light.

In reflecting further, that apparent rate is so close to C that
I began wondering if C might be a property of the space-time in
which it propagates.

I'm afraid I didn't word my concern very well.

I'll have to remember that line.

If you are looking at something at the edge of the observable
universe, then it must, by definition, have an apparent
velocity away from us at C. If you pick something closer then
the apparent velocity away from us is less than C. In neither
case is it a metric of expansion rate. An expansion rate would
be a change of volume with time, not a velocity.

There's probably something I'm missing (actually I'm certain
there is), but plowing on:

You end by saying something like: ChangeVol/Time ^= Velocity;
while they are obviously not identical a change in volume will
result in a proportional change in linear distance during some
time between two points in the volume. That looks like a duck
to me.

On the main point, the article appears to be saying that light
from objects we can see NOW, which was created 12,000,000,000
years ago (henceforth this time is The Period), was at the
moment of its emission 400,000,000 light years away.

Light from objects farther away during The Period, has not yet
reached us, while light from closer objects has already passed
us by. So, as far as I can tell, this information does give us
an effective rate of expansion for the universe since The
Period. (Obviously the rate of expansion has decreased
dramatically over time - making my comment about C being a
property of space-time appear silly for this context).

Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)

Note that though I am not deliberately hiding anything, I am
interested in seeing if this rascal is cunning enough to sort
this mess out in a way that is understandable to simpletons like
myself.

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about the Big Bang and Dark Matter
    ... It wasn't an explosion of stuff, ... The distribution of matter at the time of the CMBR was uniform, ... believed that the expansion slowed during the first few ... matter in the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Questions about the expansion of space
    ... so homogeneously and isotropically throughout the universe. ... matter, as in the now generally discredited steady-state theory. ... Since the expansion of space is occuring everywhere, ... subject to the same density decrease. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: viewing light from the earliest stages of universe
    ... > every area of the universe. ... external from the matter in the singularity. ... > assuming that the expansion is caused by a force upon every bit of matter ... >, like a kid that can walk down the aisle of a moving bus, has no problem ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Concept of Space Expansion
    ... >i.e., space devoid of matter. ... >of our universe, but there is no way to estimate the size of Absolute ... >explain it if we can show that visible matter takes a back seat to the ... >objects in space do not change as they should if the expansion process ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Concept of Space Expansion
    ... >i.e., space devoid of matter. ... >of our universe, but there is no way to estimate the size of Absolute ... >explain it if we can show that visible matter takes a back seat to the ... >objects in space do not change as they should if the expansion process ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading