[MOVED] The speed of light is the only constant, and "is" "time", etc...

[Neogaia777]

Then let's also consider that something we're seeing, say, 46.5 billion light years away from us, we'd also be supposedly seeing 46.5 billion years ago, or in the past, from our position, etc, which could mean that what we're seeing could be entire galaxies, and systems, and "stuff", that is/are now long dead and gone and whole new ones have come about or come into there place since then, etc, but then again, "time" is "relative" also now isn't it...

Anyway, then let's also consider that something 46.5 billion light years away from us has also been moving and traveling at that same speed away from us for that long of time, etc, (100% light speed or 1 times the speed of light at that distance, etc, for that long of time, etc) which should put it's actual position right on top of us, or in our exact position or where we are at, etc...

That's why I am trying to explain what is really happening and/or going on, etc...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, I know what I am talking about, and I feel I did or tired my best to explain it in some of the simplest ways possible...

Just imagine looking at it for a minute, then changing that look or as that look moves through it, etc, and just consider what is happening, and I mean really happening, etc, then go back to what I have already stated or said in some my previous posts (# 59 and after that)...

I do not know how to put it any simpler or in another way...

The dark areas or pockets are pushing out equally on everything everwhere, equally from everywhere, etc, and gravity is pulling everything together or back in around them, etc...

And the effect of the dark pockets pushing out equally on everything equally from everywhere is cumulative over distances away from where you are at in it, etc, (or where your looking at it from in it, etc) giving the "appearance or illusion" that we are always the center no matter where we are at or are looking at it from in it, giving the appearance or illusion that the further out away from us things are (or where we are looking at it from) anyway, giving the appearance or illusion that the further away or out from us things are, the faster they are moving out away from us as the center, etc, but that is not really or actually the way it actually is, or is actually happening, etc...

Your description of the two central concepts - expansion of space and attraction of gravity - is grossly distorted. Space is expanding uniformly, regardless of dark or light areas, which makes it literally universal. Gravity can hold clumps of matter such as galaxies together despite the expansion of space, but because its influence falls off with the inverse square of the distance, it's effectively local to those clumps of matter.

You're correct that for an observer at any point they appear to be at the centre of expansion, and I've already explained how this is true in one sense - everything is moving away from them, which makes them a centre of expansion; and how it is false in another sense - there is no single centre of expansion.

You're also correct that the further away from the observer objects are, the faster they recede from him. This is not an illusion, they really are moving away from the observer and moving away faster the further away they are. I already explained how this works.

You're making up stuff for which there is no evidence and drawing illogical conclusions from simple fundamentals.

If, as you say, you know what you're talking about, it clearly isn't physics but some irrational dream-like fantasy of your own invention. This is the Physical & Life Science forum - you're welcome to speculate all you want, but it's expected to be based on empirical evidence and rational, logical thought.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And, telling me I can't "articulate" it, don't make me laugh, I "articulate" it just fine thank you very much...

And if by "articulating" it, you mean making it much much more complicated or complex than it actually is or should be, or needs to be, etc, in order to understand it, etc, sorry, I'm not doing that, etc...

Nope; being articulate means having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently. When everyone finds your posts to be neither fluent nor coherent, that means by definition that you are being inarticulate.

This should be very simple, and the fact that you or others like you feel the need to be condescending or insulting just because your not getting it or understanding it, speaks volumes about you and your kind and people like you BTW...

In my opinion, and I think I am very right about this as well, etc, your guys feeling the need to be or act that way, etc, just further confirms that I am, or am 100% right about this or am telling the exact truth, etc...

That has been my experience with "this or these kinds of experiences" with people like you and when they feel the need to resort to it, or do "this", etc, or be this way, etc... Anyway...

Playing the victim card doesn't impress me. All I know about you is what you post, and it's your posts I find to be generally inarticulate and incoherent.

I've spent a considerable amount of time patiently answering your repeated questions, and when you asked me what I thought of your ideas, I gave you my honest opinion.

Anyway let's just discuss the ideas themselves, OK...?

If you have some ideas that are logical and make physical sense, I'd be glad to discuss them. Please try to express them clearly and concisely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then let's also consider that something we're seeing, say, 46.5 billion light years away from us, we'd also be supposedly seeing 46.5 billion years ago, or in the past, from our position, etc, which could mean that what we're seeing could be entire galaxies, and systems, and "stuff", that is/are now long dead and gone and whole new ones have come about or come into there place since then, etc, but then again, "time" is "relative" also now isn't it...

If the object wasn't moving toward or away from us, then yes the light from an object 46.5 billion ly away would have taken 46.5 billion years to arrive and we would be seeing as it was 46.5 billion years ago. Our location as a time reference is a perfectly valid one in relativity (the whole point of the principle of relativity is that no reference is preferred over another as "correct" or "absolute") and so it's not unreasonable to consider the observations we make of a distant object in our local frame where we measure that light. But, if we would wish to communicate with that distant galaxy, a message will take 93 billion years to make the round trip. That's just the limited propagation speed of information.

Anyway, then let's also consider that something 46.5 billion light years away from us has also been moving and traveling at that same speed away from us for that long of time, etc, (100% light speed or 1 times the speed of light at that distance, etc, for that long of time, etc) which should put it's actual position right on top of us, or in our exact position or where we are at, etc...

OK, there are two things here, for the first one I'll use a non-relativistic example...

Suppose some is riding a bike away from you at 15 mph and they are 45 miles away and you have a car that moves at 60 mph, can you catch them? (and if so when) Of course you can! If you drive your car to where the cyclist is before you start it will take you 45 minutes to get there. Now the cyclist has been moving and is further away from your original position. If you keep driving for another 15 minutes you will traverse the same 15 miles that the cyclist traveled over the whole hour you were driving. Where was the cyclist? Were they in the place the driver started at any time during that hour, no, they were 45-60 miles from that location.

Another version. Suppose a spacecraft is moving away from Earth at 0.25c (1/4 the speed of light) and is located 0.75 light-hours away from Earth. Can you send a radio message to the craft? Again the math works out the same. The radio signal will catch up with the spacecraft one hour after being emitted when the space craft is 1 light-hour from Earth.

As long as the message (car/radio signal) is moving faster than the recipient (cyclist/spacecraft) the message will eventually reach and neither the dispatcher of the car, nor the sender of the radio signal will at any point in the process be in the same place as the recipient.

OK, now on to the second issue...

In many ways this is a bigger issue. For our distant local in space (at 46.5 G ly), the motion of our Galaxy and the motion of the distant object are *not* the issues at hand here. Rather it is the relative expansion of space between them that matters. This is not constant in its rate.

I know where the 46.5 G L-yr number comes from. It is the current "proper radius" of the visible universe. It's also the *current* distance to the matter that emitted the cosmic microwave background (CMB) light we can see. That matter wasn't ever actually "right on top of us" (and it certainly isn't now). If it had been very close to us a the time of emission (about 13.7 G yr ago) it would have very quickly reached our location (that is the location of the gas that formed our local galaxy cluster). Instead it was far enough away that by the time it had traveled a distance equal to its original separation from "us", it still hadn't reached "here" as space had expanded. By the time it did arrive, it took 13.7 G yrs and traveled 13.7 G l-yrs, but the originating point was three time that far away due to space expansion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then let's also consider that something we're seeing, say, 46.5 billion light years away from us, we'd also be supposedly seeing 46.5 billion years ago, or in the past, from our position, etc, which could mean that what we're seeing could be entire galaxies, and systems, and "stuff", that is/are now long dead and gone and whole new ones have come about or come into there place since then, etc, ...

That's correct.

... let's also consider that something 46.5 billion light years away from us has also been moving and traveling at that same speed away from us for that long of time, etc, (100% light speed or 1 times the speed of light at that distance, etc, for that long of time, etc) which should put it's actual position right on top of us, or in our exact position or where we are at, etc...

That's partly correct. The expansion of space means that the further away from us (at cosmological scales) an object is, the faster it is receding from us. At a certain distance (14.4 billion light years), it will be receding from us faster than light. This is known as the Hubble limit or distance, and this is the radius of the Hubble sphere, the surface beyond which all objects are receding at greater than light speed relative to us. Everything within the Hubble sphere is moving away from us at less than the speed of light.

If you wind the expansion back in time, the whole universe contracts, and things that are far apart today become closer. But if you pick a time when a galaxy now at the Hubble limit was only half that distance away, it would have been travelling away from us much more slowly (speed of recession increases with distance).

If you wind time back near to the big bang, when everything in the universe was packed tightly together, you could say everything was right on top of us, but 'in our exact position' has no sensible meaning, because we too have been carried along with the expansion (there is no single centre of expansion) so you could equally well say that we were right on top of everything else; every point in space sees everything coming closer until everything is packed tightly together.

This all follows from the assumption, supported by observation, that every unit volume of space is expanding at the same rate; i.e. a scalar expansion of the metric.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank you guys for your posts, but your still not taking into account the dark pockets or areas pushing out(ward) on everything equally and equally everywhere, and at the same "rate" equally everywhere, etc, and this is key to "seeing it", etc...

But thanks anyway, and I really do mean that...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I still feel like you guys are running into a lot of contradictions here in your explanations, a lot of contradictions, etc, but thanks for trying anyway...

And I really do mean that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I still feel like you guys are running into a lot of contradictions here in your explanations, a lot of contradictions, etc, but thanks for trying anyway...

And I really do mean that, etc...

God Bless!

Relativity is weird. Sometimes the explanations can seem contradictory, especially if we keep our postings to less than a 3-credit course.

 

[sjastro]

Thank you guys for your posts, but your still not taking into account the dark pockets or areas pushing out(ward) on everything equally and equally everywhere, and at the same "rate" equally everywhere, etc, and this is key to "seeing it", etc...

But thanks anyway, and I really do mean that...

God Bless!

Amongst other things this incoherent summary is destroyed by the horizon problem and cannot explain why the CMB is for all intents and purposes at the same temperature in all directions.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I still feel like you guys are running into a lot of contradictions here in your explanations, a lot of contradictions, etc, but thanks for trying anyway...

If you'd like to point out the most significant contradictions you see, maybe we can explain them.

Otherwise, we can only assume that you don't understand what's been described.