Time : Expansion of The Universe

gkell2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, I see. I couldn't figure out why you had an issue with Newton, since he's actually the most modern physicist you agree with, but that explains it. If he'd said:

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. Obviously, from the sun they are always seen direct,..."

I have news for you son,all planetary motion is seen directly,the illusion of 'backward' retrograde motion is a consequence of knowing the Earth is moving faster than Jupiter and Saturn in the following time lapse footage -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

You are big boys now and are supposed to know this much so following the dictates of Newton is something I have witnessed as a type of unwanted phenomena.If Newton says the moon rotates then his followers will destroy themselves trying to justify this nonsense and when he said the longitude problem could not be resolved by a watch and the principle of rotation once in 24 hours,his followers tried to destroy Harrison's watch rather than relent.

"I have told the world oftener than once that longitude is not to be found by watchmakers but by the ablest astronomers. I am unwilling to meddle with any other method than the right one." Newton

The problem is the indoctrination begins almost when students go through primary school and maths shades off into physics in secondary school and there is not the slightest sign of astronomy and its historical or technical details during that developmental period.Readers here would find it painful to the point of illness to change to something more productive hence I am not so hard on you all.It is a process of snapping out of an indoctrination and taking a wider view of astronomy,its methods,principles and insights.

The vicious form of empiricism seems to give its followers a type of superiority but I discovered early on that what it really does is give them an unlimited amount of choices which surface as endless assertions and without the restraint of physical considerations,astronomy becomes something like the mess we have today.

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration.... But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that diversity in physical matters , . . " Kepler

This is not self-congratulation but this ties in with hypothesis as the Church understood these things in Galileo's time,the false technical non sequitur of Newton and multiple other issues which astronomers would normally encounter.It is how astronomers are supposed to converse but in an era which has something like 'big bang' in it,astronomers will be hard to come by.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

Once again you have not answered my question. I can repeat it again for you if you like.

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

None of you get it,the anomalous motion of Jupiter's moon Io was accounted for by asserting that light from that object takes a certain amount of time to reach us based on the varying distances between Earth and Jupiter.The conclusion, and there are real problems with the original conclusion,is that the motion of celestial objects show a positional displacement if they move past 186000 miles .It has nothing to do with seeing objects in the physical past much less seeing an evolutionary timeline directly unless you completely wish to destroy a mind.

http://archive.org/stream/philosophicaltra02royarich#page/398/mode/1up

How this got turned into an irritating idea of looking at objects in the past hence 'big bang' will occupy your type of mind and the many victims that come here trying to make sense of the thing but minds who can lunge at a conclusion generally don;t stop to consider such considerations as the rotation of the foreground stars to the external galaxies and the consequences of that easy to understand conception.

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

the illusion of 'backward' retrograde motion is a consequence of knowing the Earth is moving faster than Jupiter and Saturn in the following time lapse footage

You don't need timelapse photography, as Newton demonstrates in that quote. You are agreeing with Newton. So am I.

You somehow imagine that Newton saying "but" instead of "and" makes that quote wrong, but and it is you that is wrong.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

None of you get it,the anomalous motion of Jupiter's moon Io was accounted for by asserting that light from that object takes a certain amount of time to reach us based on the varying distances between Earth and Jupiter.The conclusion, and there are real problems with the original conclusion,is that the motion of celestial objects show a positional displacement if they move past 186000 miles .It has nothing to do with seeing objects in the physical past much less seeing an evolutionary timeline directly unless you completely wish to destroy a mind.

Modern measurements of the speed of light are not taken by assessing the motion of Jupiter's moons. That method hasn't been used for 200 years. Modern methods do not even use astronomical observations, they use laboratory experiments.

And you still have not answered my question. Let me repeat once again

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

generally don;t stop to consider such considerations as the rotation of the foreground stars to the external galaxies

Do you actually think the galaxy rotates so fast that we can observe foreground stars moving against the background of external galaxies?

Cú Giobach

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Created out of what?
What is "empty" space made of?
It must be made of something. It can't be just being created out of nothing (conservation of energy?). Gallaxes surely must be moving through space, not just being dislodged from their position in space by the addition of yet more space from somewhere, like debris moving apart in a flood.

I don't know the answer by the way, it's a geniuine question.

Space is just what it says on the tin, Space.
If you move two objects further apart you have created more space between them.

sbsquarepants

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Space is just what it says on the tin, Space.
If you move two objects further apart you have created more space between them.

That's not really what i meant by the question.
If i move 2 objects here on my desk apart, i have changed their relative positions IN space. I haven't created space, i've created distance with is merely a change of position, in space which allready exists. Creating space is quite different. A finite universe, to my mind implies that space itself is "something" Finite implies that space ends at a certain point and outside that is non space for want of a better phrase. Either just nothingness or another universe.
Otherwise the universe is infinite, just largely empty?

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

I have explained what I acknowledge so let me return the favor ,you believe the most distant galaxies are the oldest due to the 'modern' perception of light speed so the extended conclusion is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.,it is not an insult but it is your 'big bang' theory.

The thing is on its way out anyway ,that is the way these things work but empirical drones don't act as individuals and the many victims who come here trying to envisage 'expanding space' or other meaningless junk.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

I have explained what I acknowledge

As far as I'm aware you have not answered my question. If you have answered my question and I missed your response can you please either link to the answer or repeat it here for us.

gkell2 wrote: »

You believe the most distant galaxies are the oldest due to the 'modern' perception of light speed

No. The speed of light has no effect on the age of galaxies or the age of the space they occupy. It does though allow us to see imagines of galaxies that existed a long time ago due to the fact that the light takes a long time to travel to us. These galaxies no longer exist though in the form we observe them, any more than a person in a photograph from 1972 still looks like that now in 2012.

gkell2 wrote: »

so the extended conclusion is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.,it is not an insult but it is your 'big bang' theory.

There is no scientific theory that states that the further way a galaxy is the older it is.

gkell2 wrote: »

The thing is on its way out anyway ,that is the way these things work but empirical drones don't act as individuals and the many victims who come here trying to envisage 'expanding space' or other meaningless junk.

Space is expanding. But that still doesn't mean anyone says that the further away a galaxy is the older it is.

And I should point out you still have not answered my question.

gkell2

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not really what i meant by the question.
If i move 2 objects here on my desk apart, i have changed their relative positions IN space. I haven't created space, i've created distance with is merely a change of position, in space which allready exists. Creating space is quite different. A finite universe, to my mind implies that space itself is "something" Finite implies that space ends at a certain point and outside that is non space for want of a better phrase. Either just nothingness or another universe.
Otherwise the universe is infinite, just largely empty?

Try Edgar Allan Poe,at least if you are serious about these things and wish to reach your own conclusion using your own intelligence -

"Let us begin, then, at once, with that merest of words, “Infinity.”
This, like “God,” “spirit,” and some other expressions of which the
equivalents exist in all languages, is by no means the expression of
an idea — but of an effort at one. It stands for the possible attempt
at an impossible conception. Man needed a term by which to point out
the direction of this effort — the cloud behind which lay, forever
invisible, the object of this attempt. A word, in fine, was demanded,
by means of which one human being might put himself in relation at
once with another human being and with a certain tendency of the human
intellect. Out of this demand arose the word, “Infinity;” which is
thus the representative but of the thought of a thought.
As regards that infinity now considered — the infinity of space — we
often hear it said that “its idea is admitted by the mind — is
acquiesced in — is entertained — on account of the greater difficulty
which attends the conception of a limit.” But this is merely one of
those phrases by which even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have
occasionally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble lies
concealed in the word “difficulty.” “The mind,” we are told,
“entertains the idea of limitless, through the greater difficulty
which it finds in entertaining that of limited, space.” Now, were the
proposition but fairly put, its absurdity would become transparent at
once. Clearly, there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion
intended, if presented according to its intention and without
sophistry, would run thus: — “The mind admits the idea of limitless,
through the greater impossibility of entertaining that of limited,
space.”" Edgar Allan Poe

People make many thousands of geometrical judgments each day based on the relationship between objects and the space between them yet few develop a talent for applying that same judgment to the motion of the moon and planets at large scales such as the solar system.I always though modern imaging and graphical tools ease the transition to making sense of observations on a scale where we are moving through space along with the other planets in a circuit around the Sun however if you find yourself trying to make sense of 'expanding space' you have already lost.

If you want to be treated like a fool by people who have lost their ability to reason properly then be my guest,that is what keeps the whole thing going as you might mistake intellectual superiority for something adults sometimes get a kick from when a child tries to explain something they are not sure of in their own quaint way.That is what you are seeing here as they have,for no good reason,suspended the normal judgments of the motions of objects in or through space.

The Hill Billy

Zombrex wrote: »

There is no scientific theory that states this. This has been explained to you already.

The galaxies are not old, the light is. It has been travelling for a very long time, and when it reaches us it shows a picture of the galaxy a long time ago.

Now, can you acknowledge that you understand this point before moving on.

gkell2 wrote: »

You are fine,these things get worked out at a different level,this time it is different as 'big bang' represents the excesses of a toxic strain of empiricism and the unsightly overreaching between astronomical observations and experimental sciences.There are always those at the lower tier who continue to continue dancing long after the music has stopped so make sure you are not one of them.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done when genuine empiricism returns to being a facet of astronomy rather than a driver of it.Astronomy is not a talent contest,there are no judges as you would understand these things so the headache inducing pronouncements I see belong to a certain section of the community are a product of this era and I have nothing to say about it.

Zombrex wrote: »

That didn't answer my question.

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

gkell2 wrote: »

If you are familiar with the original determination based on the anomalous motion of Jupiter's satellite Io and the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter then we can get to the bottom of this.There are lots of issues to resolve and especially Roemer's use of the Equation of Time even though a complete set of tables only emerged over a century later with John Harrison's set which accounted for natural noon of Feb 29th.

So let's get stuck in -

What do you think of Newton's use of the Equation of Time to link together Huygen's exposition of pendulum clocks and Roemer's use of it to screen out the variations in the Earth's rotation thereby allowing for Roemer's Mora Luminis or 'Equation of Light' as it was originally known -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions....The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

This is important for the original astronomers never thought in terms of Jupiter moving nearer into the past and further into the past as 'big bang' bozos do but only that after distances of 186,000 miles,anomalous motions set in.

Of course Huygen's treatise on the Equation of Time requires a modification as natural noon occurs 1461 times in 4 years and there is no budget for the 365 days 5 hours 49 minute system to which he ties his values -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy" Huygens

Now you have to remember that the foreground stars of the Milky Way are moving in a circle to the background galaxies so their radical speed has to be taken into account so that the position of any one galaxy never remains fixed to the current foreground stars as we are basically on a carousel of moving stars in our orbit of the Milky Way center.

Am I going to quickly for you or have you taken these things into account ?.That last section would be especially relevant for empiricists but too greedy and too overreaching in their objectives,you want your cartoon view of things.The truth is that you are like people dancing long after the music has stopped,you don't know it yet but that is the way it is.

gkell2 wrote: »

Do you understand that planetary orbital comparisons are necessary to determine the original insight that the anomalous motion of Io is due to the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter which includes the apparent retrograde motions of Jupiter.

You are not going to comprehend orbital comparisons and the Equation of Light without first going through the procedure that began with Copernicus,refined by Kepler and then and only then on to Roemer.

Can you see what is wrong with the following statement against the correct statement which uses orbital comparisons to determine and define the Earth's motion ? -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Look,you are fine and this looks like an indulgence on my part,something I sought to avoid.

There would possibly be one person out of a thousand who would have noticed the issue of the foreground stars rotation against the external galaxies and why assigning relevance to right ascension and stellar circumpolar motion is hampering any productive work in that direction.The idea is that astronomically we haven't even begun to sort out the wider picture but it ain't going to happen with guys stuck in the late 17th century addiction to right ascension.

Look,I can't tell you enough that you are fine,no better or worse than the next and hardly aware that 'big bang' is on its way out.

gkell2 wrote: »

None of you get it,the anomalous motion of Jupiter's moon Io was accounted for by asserting that light from that object takes a certain amount of time to reach us based on the varying distances between Earth and Jupiter.The conclusion, and there are real problems with the original conclusion,is that the motion of celestial objects show a positional displacement if they move past 186000 miles .It has nothing to do with seeing objects in the physical past much less seeing an evolutionary timeline directly unless you completely wish to destroy a mind.

http://archive.org/stream/philosophicaltra02royarich#page/398/mode/1up

How this got turned into an irritating idea of looking at objects in the past hence 'big bang' will occupy your type of mind and the many victims that come here trying to make sense of the thing but minds who can lunge at a conclusion generally don;t stop to consider such considerations as the rotation of the foreground stars to the external galaxies and the consequences of that easy to understand conception.

gkell2 wrote: »

I have explained what I acknowledge so let me return the favor ,you believe the most distant galaxies are the oldest due to the 'modern' perception of light speed so the extended conclusion is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.,it is not an insult but it is your 'big bang' theory.

The thing is on its way out anyway ,that is the way these things work but empirical drones don't act as individuals and the many victims who come here trying to envisage 'expanding space' or other meaningless junk.

A simple "No" would have sufficed.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

No. The speed of light has no effect on the age of galaxies or the age of the space they occupy. It does though allow us to see imagines of galaxies that existed a long time ago due to the fact that the light takes a long time to travel to us. These galaxies no longer exist though in the form we observe them, any more than a person in a photograph from 1972 still looks like that now in 2012.

So now you say the oldest observed galaxies are not the oldest and most distant which is contrary to all those 'big bang articles out there -

"Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html

So here we have this theory that says we see the oldest galaxy when the Universe was younger/smaller and now you tell me you don't believe the nearest galaxies are not the youngest in an older/larger Universe.If you want to propose a theory then it must obey logical consistency so I wouldn't even waste another second with unfortunate people who do not know what they want,what I can do is point others in the direction of the absurdity where they simply move on rather than waste their time following people who no longer are in possession of their senses.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

So now you say the oldest observed galaxies are not the oldest and most distant which is contrary to all those 'big bang articles out there

Right now galaxies are no older than the galaxies there are right here. The Milky Way is the game age as these galaxies (assuming they still exists 13 billion years later, which they may not)

What is old is the image of the galaxy.

We cannot see the old Milky Way that was here 13 billion years ago because the light they produced long ago disappeared.

Distance from Earth has no effect on the age of a galaxy. There are galaxies just as old right here.

I suspect you don't understand how light works. Perhaps this will become clearer if you attempt to answer the question I asked you.

gkell2 wrote: »

So here we have this theory that says we see the oldest galaxy when the Universe was younger/smaller and now you tell me you don't believe the nearest galaxies are not the youngest in an older/larger Universe.

Distance from Earth has no effect on the age of a galaxy. The galaxy mentioned in this article no longer exist.

gkell2 wrote: »

If you want to propose a theory then it must obey logical consistency so I wouldn't even waste another second with unfortunate people who do not know what they want

It would be a shame to see you go without you understanding what is being discussed here. Before you go can you answer my question, we then might be able to help you understand the points being made? I can repeat it for you

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

Distance from Earth has no effect on the age of a galaxy. The galaxies mentioned in this article no longer exist.

Look,enjoy 'big bang' with pride if that is what you choose to do,it presents huge obstacles to using modern imaging and a new type of astronomy that is emerging,actually an older type of astronomy used in a new way.

The idea that you can see the evolutionary timeline directly by equating time with distance directly is extraordinarily unhealthy but again,that is a choice you make.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

Look,enjoy 'big bang' with pride if that is what you choose to do,it presents huge obstacles to using modern imaging and a new type of astronomy that is emerging,actually an older type of astronomy used in a new way.

The idea that you can see the evolutionary timeline directly by equating time with distance directly is extraordinarily unhealthy but again,that is a choice you make.

You still have not answered my question. What are you afraid of?

No one cares if you do not understand how light works, everyone has to start some where in their journey of learning and we are more than happy to explain it to you if that is the case.

But if you will not admit what you do not understand we cannot help you understand.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

You still have not answered my question. What are you afraid of?

No one cares if you do not understand how light works, everyone has to start some where in their journey of learning and we are more than happy to explain it to you if that is the case.

But if you will not admit what you do not understand we cannot help you understand.

I wonder how many victims come here in the belief they are approaching some form of superior intelligence only to find that you can believe that the oldest galaxies are the most distant,believe the oldest galaxies or not the most distant and that chestnut of yours - the oldest galaxies are no longer there.

You poor things are unable to look at the proposals seen by the wider population that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and its extended conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest -

"Astronomers have found what may be the oldest, most distant object ever detected, a small proto galaxy dating back to just 480 million years after the Big Bang."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20029699-239.html

In case you didn't know already,the nearest thing to that mental affliction where you can hold contradictory views while believing both of them indicates a cult mentality -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell


It is a nightmare world where,under the name of astronomy,normal perceptions of the motions of bodies through space are suspended to satisfy abnormal ideologies which set limits to time and space and actually talk about 'expanding space'.It is not so much anti-astronomical but basically anti-everything normal.So,take pride in your 'big bang' and the many coverts of people too weakminded to escape a fate no person should suffer - 'be like us'.

Cú Giobach

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not really what i meant by the question.
If i move 2 objects here on my desk apart, i have changed their relative positions IN space. I haven't created space, i've created distance with is merely a change of position, in space which allready exists. Creating space is quite different. A finite universe, to my mind implies that space itself is "something" Finite implies that space ends at a certain point and outside that is non space for want of a better phrase. Either just nothingness or another universe.

The expansion of space is "the increase in distance between objects" just as I described.
Think about what space is, it is just a 3/4 dimensional "space" where things happen, if you increase the distance between objects there is more of this "space" for things to occur, therefore more space has been created.

Otherwise the universe is infinite, just largely empty?

Space is largely empty, and because of expansion it's getting emptier.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

I wonder how many victims come here in the belief they are approaching some form of superior intelligence only to find that you can believe that the oldest galaxies are the most distant,believe the oldest galaxies or not the most distant and that chestnut of yours - the oldest galaxies are no longer there.

I'm wondering why you are unwilling to answer a fairly basic question. Let me ask it again -

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

You may believe that the rest of us are of superior intelligence to you, but that does not mean you cannot answer this question, even if the answer is that you do not understand how light works.

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

d. Space is largely empty, and because of expansion it's getting emptier.

Maybe I should e-mail the guy before he shoots himself .

I could probably tell him he is encountering people with a serious mental affliction rather than a theory but I assume he already knows that .

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

Maybe I should e-mail the guy before he shoots himself .

I could probably tell him he is encountering people with a serious mental affliction rather than a theory but I assume he already knows that .

Do you understand the theory of general relativity?

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

You may believe that the rest of us are of superior intelligence to you, but that does not mean you cannot answer this question, even if the answer is that you do not understand how light works.

How can I argue with somebody who has the power to see a galaxy that is,in your own words,no longer there.

When you all decide to tow the popular presentation of 'big bang' that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe then let me know so I can point out the extended conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest .

"Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

I don't even pity you,men are responsible for what they believe and admire so we pass on and leave you to your belief that you don;t seem too sure of yourself.I can deal with people who actually can state what it is that they believe but people who hold contradictory views while believing them both should be avoided.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

Maybe I should e-mail the guy before he shoots himself .

I could probably tell him he is encountering people with a serious mental affliction rather than a theory but I assume he already knows that .

G according to you everybody is mentally afflicted except you, you do realise the logical conclusion to that belief.

Are you going to answer the question put to you, or admit you know nothing about light or the consequences of the finite speed of light.
I feel it must be the latter, because your knowledge and views on astronomy seem to be limited to pre 1800 levels, before anything was known about the true nature of light.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you understand the theory of general relativity?

I also understand the 'Soviet art of brainwashing' if that helps -

"If he has not done his work well, hostile feeling groups may expose an individual psychopolitician. These may call into question the efficacy of psychiatric treatment such as shock, drugs, and brian surgery. Therefore, the psychopolitical operative must have to hand innumerable documents which assert enourmously encouraging figures on the subject of recovery by reason of shock, brain surgery, drugs and general treatment. Not one of these cases cited need be real, but they should be documented and printed in such a fashion as to form excellent court evidence.

When his allegiance is attacked, the psychopolitical operative should explain his connection with Vienna on the grounds that Vienna is the place of study for all important matters of the mind."

http://www.fhu.com/articles/brainwashing2.html#anchor10

The old commies knew that if you wrapped up a flat Earth concept in enough lingo and kept using phrases which pointed to its acceptance by authority,you could get anyone to believe anything you wish.

I have a soft spot for relativity,find it hilarious in the same wound up way the old commie treatise is.

doctoremma

***Completely butting in in an unhelpful manner***
This thread has brightened my lunchtime and left me looking like:

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

G according to you everybody is mentally afflicted except you, you do realise the logical conclusion to that belief.

Are you going to answer the question put to you, or admit you know nothing about light or the consequences of the finite speed of light.
I feel it must be the latter, because your knowledge and views on astronomy seem to be limited to pre 1800 levels, before anything was known about the true nature of light.

You have your answer,if you believe that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe then,by extended logical consistency,you are obliged to acknowledge that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an larger/older Universe.

"Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

I could tell you it is an absurdity but no offence,that is what you choose to believe when you follow the reasoning of 'big bang' hence a mental affliction.I am not asking you do you believe that the oldest galaxies are the most distant,not even asking you if they are not nor whether you can see them at all as the other guy imagines,I simply point out what the wider population receives as a statement of 'big bang'.

You have had your answer as an extended conclusion and but apparently you can't interpret it as an answer because it is actually your own theory I am pointing out.If the victim can suffer such statements as "Space is largely empty, and because of expansion it's getting emptier" he deserves you but effectively it is entering a damaged mind and that is both unpleasant and dangerous.If any reader comes here inquiring about 'big bang' he should take Galileo's words to heart -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

Bad,bad business.

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

You have had your answer as an extended conclusion and but apparently you can't interpret it as an answer because it is actually your own theory I am pointing out.

Perhaps it would be more productive if you stopped trying to critique the big bang theory, and told us what you think will replace it now that it's "on it's way out".

Don't forget to explain observed red shift and cosmic background radiation.

sbsquarepants

gkell2 wrote: »

Try Edgar Allan Poe,at least if you are serious about these things and wish to reach your own conclusion using your own intelligence -


........


People make many thousands of geometrical judgments each day based on the relationship between objects and the space between them yet few develop a talent for applying that same judgment to the motion of the moon and planets at large scales such as the solar system.I always though modern imaging and graphical tools ease the transition to making sense of observations on a scale where we are moving through space along with the other planets in a circuit around the Sun however if you find yourself trying to make sense of 'expanding space' you have already lost.

If you want to be treated like a fool by people who have lost their ability to reason properly then be my guest,that is what keeps the whole thing going as you might mistake intellectual superiority for something adults sometimes get a kick from when a child tries to explain something they are not sure of in their own quaint way.That is what you are seeing here as they have,for no good reason,suspended the normal judgments of the motions of objects in or through space.

I'm not sure if this is an answer, a rant or an insult??
I love Poe by the way!

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The expansion of space is "the increase in distance between objects" just as I described.
Think about what space is, it is just a 3/4 dimensional "space" where things happen, if you increase the distance between objects there is more of this "space" for things to occur, therefore more space has been created.

Space is largely empty, and because of expansion it's getting emptier.

I do know what you are saying, but it's still not the gist of my question. My question is basically is "empty space" made of something or is it made of nothing. Maybe it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, or maybe it's just a plain stupid question, but it is a question i can't seem to find an answer to.
Basically is it possible, in the known physical universe for patches of "nothing" to exist. Obviously i know there can be vacums, but are they still something? For example - gravity works through a vacum, so does radiation - how could that be if there wasn't some medium for them to travel through? How can anything travel through something that doesn't exist??

PS: Sorry if that sounds like i've been at the lsd, but i can't explain it any better than that!!

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

You have your answer,if you believe it is and that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe then,by extended logical consistency,you are obliged to acknowledge that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an larger/older Universe.

If you ever decide to learn the basics about light you might realise how stupid naive you have been by constantly repeating this refrain of yours.

Just out of curiosity, do you understand that because sound takes time to travel you don't hear distant thunder as it is happening, you actually hear it some time (often quite a while) after it happened.

Tell me this, since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not in the past?

gkell2

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is an answer, a rant or an insult??

Don't worry son,you will soon be a big banger and have the power to look back in time and space,it is supposed to register with you as a mental affliction as it is opposed to common sense but it looks like you are a great candidate for indoctrination as you ask all the right questions.

Good luck to you now.

Amtmann

gkell2 wrote: »

I have explained what I acknowledge so let me return the favor ,you believe the most distant galaxies are the oldest due to the 'modern' perception of light speed so the extended conclusion is that the nearest galaxies are the youngest.

NO it isn't.