Re: The Current Universe Being Observed Is No Longer There

On Jan 2, 2:15 am, Primary AL <aavery6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 30 2007, 8:15 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



In article <fl7jfb$hm...@xxxxxxxx>,
"David Hare-Scott" <comp...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The sun is some 8 light minutes away. The light that I see reflected off a
cow standing in a field that I see through my window took some time to reach
my eye and by that time the cow may have moved a ltttle or even mysteriously
vanished. Is the sun "not there", what about the cow? Where do you draw the
line? It looks to me that you have no reason to decide that the cow is there
and the star a billion light years off is not. If you have a reason please
tell us what it is and how you worked out the maximum distance that things are
still there.

That things are still there is an assumption, just like the assumption
that things exist outside your mind. One mind projecting everything
seems to me the most parsimonious explanation of the observed fact and
hence to be preferred by Occam's razor. One mind only and no physical
universe at all and "we" are down to exactly one entity.

The phraze should have been: "The reality and the state things were in
then is not the same as now."
A little latitude here.Not that 2 minutes ago and 1 year or 1000 years
ago should nullify disagree with an Occam's razor approach to drawing
sane conclusions. The problem, it seems, becomes more and more salient
when we get beyond the time spans which allow stronger possibilities
of complete changes such as, destructions, disintegrations, and
substantial changes in the patterns of movements,characteristics and
representations of perceived objects or perceptions and calculations
of series and sets of moving objects. Not one thousand years. More
like 20 billion, or one hundred billion. The Earth being only 4.5
billion years old is in a completely different state.

It's not that information cant be gleaned from observation of the
universe in a former state. It is that it once again, (and according
to Einstein even after Hubble in the 1920's) seems to be (in an
Occam's razor level of concluding) a much larger and older universe
than 14 billion years old. It also seems that stuff is made up on the
spot to cover contradictory evidence of these numbers. i.e.the
universe was just 13.7 billion years old yet 158 billion light-years
wide. That suggests the speed of light has been exceeded, they argue.

So SPACE.com asked Neil Cornish to explain further. Here is his
response:

"The problem is that funny things happen in general relativity which
appear to violate special relativity (nothing traveling faster than
the speed of light and all that). And here we go with a grand theory
for another band aid.

"Let's go back to Hubble's observation that distant galaxies appear to
be moving away from us, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it
appears to move away. (The constant of proportionality in that
relationship is known as Hubble's constant.) Hubble's Double talk to
me.

"One seemingly paradoxical consequence of Hubble's observation is that
galaxies sufficiently far away will be receding from us at a velocity
faster than the speed of light. This distance is called the Hubble
radius, and is commonly referred to as the horizon in analogy with a
black hole horizon.

Yes. What exactly confuses you about this? The *space is expanding
from us faster than light at that distance. The *galaxies aren't going
faster than light - if we were to go there (and it would likely take a
very long time, indeed...) we would find that they were moving about
about as fast as the galaxies in our neighborhood are.

Because we can't see past the horizon of the universe, we can't be
sure how much bigger - if any - it is. Some astronomers have suggested
that it is very, very big. Perhaps even infinite. <shrug> I'll let
those who study the subject debate it and let me know. I'm in no
position to take issue with the consensus on this matter, any more
than I am with a heart surgeon or auto mechanic. I have my areas of
expertise, and cosmology ain't it.

Perhaps if you explained what you are actually trying to assert we
could discuss it more easily. You started this thread with a post that
stated the obvious. Every elementary description of the universe makes
clear that we are looking into the past when we look at distant stars.
I'm glad you understand that, but it's not true that scientists have
somehow overlooked this.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
    ... I.e., the distance between ... other of the galaxies observed. ... > permeated with a dense filling of dust particles. ... does not exist in the real universe, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Cosmological Principle
    ... >> galaxies out to a distance of almost 2 billion light years. ... >> how the matter in the universe was distributed. ... And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from ... their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • REDSHIFT IN A STABLE UNIVERSE
    ... Old massives galaxies, giant strings of galaxies, or iron-rich quasars ... the universe should appear very young at such distances. ... when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: String langscapes and vacuum decay
    ... In a homogeneous 'flat' universe the number of galaxies ... in such a sector will increase in direct proprtion to the square of the ... distance from the observer. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Current Universe Being Observed Is No Longer There
    ... cow standing in a field that I see through my window took some time to reach ... universe at all and "we" are down to exactly one entity. ... appear to violate special relativity (nothing traveling faster than ... This distance is called the Hubble ...
    (talk.origins)