Research Discussion: Speed Of The Expansion Of The Universe ...

Speed Of The Expansion Of The Universe ...
Posts: 29

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Hägar
2012-10-05 16:43:57 EST
... measure more precisely than ever:

http://news.yahoo.com/speed-universes-expansion-measured-better-ever-213314960.html;_ylt=AknBw5mLwS_g77jRjddPojUPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNuYWFnZnRrBG1pdAMEcGtnAzNmOGEyZGE3LWVjN2ItMzRlZC04YmMzLTdmZDgxM2NmMzkxNgRwb3MDMTcEc2VjA2xuX1NwYWNlQXN0cm9ub215X2dhbAR2ZXIDNTVmNDY4MDEtMGRhMi0xMWUyLTliZTctN2Y5M2U2MmNkMDRk;_ylv=3

The same mathematical formula can be used to calculate the speed at which
Hussein Obama is fading in his quest for repeat King of
America, when confronted by an opponent who is not a boot-licker and has his
shit together.



Brad Guth
2012-10-05 23:18:52 EST
On Oct 5, 1:43 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... measure more precisely than ever:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/speed-universes-expansion-measured-better-ever-...
>
> The same mathematical formula can be used to calculate the speed at which
> Hussein Obama is fading in his quest for repeat King of
> America, when confronted by an opponent who is not a boot-licker and has his
> shit together.

You've been breathing too much of your own flatulence.

Just because Hitler turned you on, doesn't mean that the GOP option is
going to give you all that much to smile about.

However, reducing government by 50% as well as cutting your ENRON
retirement benefits in half would certainly put a big smile on my face.

Painius
2012-10-06 07:12:17 EST
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:43:57 -0700, "Hägar" <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>... measure more precisely than ever:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/speed-universes-expansion-measured-better-ever-213314960.html;_ylt=AknBw5mLwS_g77jRjddPojUPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNuYWFnZnRrBG1pdAMEcGtnAzNmOGEyZGE3LWVjN2ItMzRlZC04YmMzLTdmZDgxM2NmMzkxNgRwb3MDMTcEc2VjA2xuX1NwYWNlQXN0cm9ub215X2dhbAR2ZXIDNTVmNDY4MDEtMGRhMi0xMWUyLTliZTctN2Y5M2U2MmNkMDRk;_ylv=3

The one thing about this that *nobody* has been able to explain to me
is as follows:

The Universe is supposed to be expanding, and it's acceleration of
expansion increases at a certain rate per megaparsec called the
"Hubble constant". That rate is now measured to be about 74 km/s/Mp
(seventy four kilometers per second per Megaparsec).

If I understand this correctly, it means that at one Mp from an
observer, the Universe expands about 74 km/s *faster* than it is
expanding at the position of the observer. And at two Mp from the
observer, the Universe expands about 74 km/s *faster* than it is
expanding at the one-Mp position. Then at three Mp from the observer,
the Universe expands about 74 km/s *faster* than it is expanding at
the two-Mp position. And so on.

We know that one Mp is equal to a little more than three million
light-years. So using light-years, three million years ago, the
Universe expanded about 74 km/s *faster* than it does now. And six
million years ago, the Universe expanded 74 km/s *faster* than it did
three million years ago. Then nine million years ago, the Universe
expanded 74 km/s *faster* than it did six million years ago. And so
on.

To me, it looks as if the acceleration has actually been getting
slower from millions of years in the past into the present day. It
also does not help matters that there seems to be no way to measure
the Universe's expansion rate here in "local" space.

Can anybody explain this to me in terms a six-year-old could
understand?

--
Indelibly yours,
P* @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Home is where, when you go there, they have to let you in."

Poutnik
2012-10-06 07:35:00 EST

Painius from starswirler@aol.com
posted Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:12:17 -0400

>
> We know that one Mp is equal to a little more than three million
> light-years. So using light-years, three million years ago, the
> Universe expanded about 74 km/s *faster* than it does now.

And this comes your mistakes.
You cannot freely convert light-years as distance to years as time,
unless you DO know you can.

The above just says at distance of 1 Mp = 3.26 mil LY
the universe is expanding wrt observer 74 km/s.

It has no relation to how fast it was expending 3.26 mil years ago.

> And six million years ago, the Universe expanded 74 km/s *faster* than
> it did three million years ago. Then nine million years ago, the
> Universe expanded 74 km/s *faster* than it did six million years ago.
> And so on.
>
> To me, it looks as if the acceleration has actually been getting
> slower from millions of years in the past into the present day. It
> also does not help matters that there seems to be no way to measure
> the Universe's expansion rate here in "local" space.
>
> Can anybody explain this to me in terms a six-year-old could
> understand?



--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

G=EMC^2
2012-10-06 09:52:15 EST
On Oct 6, 7:35 am, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Painius from starswir...@aol.com
> posted Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:12:17 -0400
>
>
>
> > We know that one Mp is equal to a little more than three million
> > light-years.  So using light-years, three million years ago, the
> > Universe expanded about 74 km/s *faster* than it does now.
>
> And this comes your mistakes.
> You cannot freely convert light-years as distance to years as time,
> unless you DO know you can.
>
> The above just says at distance of 1 Mp = 3.26 mil LY
> the universe is expanding wrt observer 74 km/s.
>
> It has no relation to how fast it was expending 3.26 mil years ago.
>
> > And six million years ago, the Universe expanded 74 km/s *faster* than
> > it did three million years ago. Then nine million years ago, the
> > Universe expanded 74 km/s *faster* than it did six million years ago.
> > And so on.
>
> > To me, it looks as if the acceleration has actually been getting
> > slower from millions of years in the past into the present day.  It
> > also does not help matters that there seems to be no way to measure
> > the Universe's expansion rate here in "local" space.
>
> > Can anybody explain this to me in terms a six-year-old could
> > understand?
>
> --
> Poutnik
>
> Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
> if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

My convex space kicked in 7 billion years ago. Before that it looked
like concave was kicking in. That was a good thing. Inflation is
best it gives stuff lots of elbow room. TeBet

Painius
2012-10-07 20:44:29 EST
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:35:00 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Painius from starswirler@aol.com
>posted Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:12:17 -0400
>
>>
>> We know that one Mp is equal to a little more than three million
>> light-years. So using light-years, three million years ago, the
>> Universe expanded about 74 km/s *faster* than it does now.
>
>And this comes your mistakes.
>You cannot freely convert light-years as distance to years as time,
>unless you DO know you can.
>
>The above just says at distance of 1 Mp = 3.26 mil LY
>the universe is expanding wrt observer 74 km/s.
>
>It has no relation to how fast it was expending 3.26 mil years ago.

That's very clear and concise. So if we must not relate the distance
with the time past, then the conclusion is that it is presently
thought that the Universe IS (presently, right now) expanding.

What brings us to this conclusion? We OBSERVE that faraway galaxies
are red-shifted and moving away from us. We OBSERVE that the farther
away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. And
from these and further observations, we conclude that the Universe IS
(presently, right now) not only expanding, but expanding (presently,
right now) at an accelerating velocity.

Sorry, ( and thank you for responding) Poutnik, but it still seems to
me that those observations include the fact that the farther we peer
out into space, the longer ago in the past we are peering, and it is
that fact that makes it appear that the Universe was expanding in the
past, and the longer ago in the past we peer, the faster the Universe
appears to be expanding.

When it comes to actually observing the space around us, I really
don't see how one can separate the time thing from the space thing. So
I understand what you said, which makes me think that the acceleration
isn't really being measured, but only inferred.

The farther away our observations get from Earth, the longer ago in
the past we are observing. How can this be separated in order to come
up with an accurate measurement of the accelerated expansion? It
seems to me that the moment one separates out the time, the accuracy
of measurement must go out the window.

So if the Universe is (presently, right now) expanding at an
accelerated rate, how long do you think it will be until scientists
are able to measure the expansion here in local space?

--
Indelibly yours,
P* @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"If you really want to alter your life, alter your attitude of mind."

Poutnik
2012-10-08 00:52:05 EST

Painius from starswirler@aol.com
posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:44:29 -0400


>
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:35:00 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >
> >And this comes your mistakes.
> >You cannot freely convert light-years as distance to years as time,
> >unless you DO know you can.
> >
> >The above just says at distance of 1 Mp = 3.26 mil LY
> >the universe is expanding wrt observer 74 km/s.
> >
> >It has no relation to how fast it was expending 3.26 mil years ago.
>
> That's very clear and concise. So if we must not relate the distance
> with the time past, then the conclusion is that it is presently
> thought that the Universe IS (presently, right now) expanding.

You try to push the discussion beyond the point I was pointing out.

>
> What brings us to this conclusion? We OBSERVE that faraway galaxies
> are red-shifted and moving away from us. We OBSERVE that the farther
> away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. And
> from these and further observations, we conclude that the Universe IS
> (presently, right now) not only expanding, but expanding (presently,
> right now) at an accelerating velocity.

If I pmake paralel of universe expansion and mathematical analysis,
Hubble constant gives us slope as the first derivative,
but no the curvature as the function of second derivative.

>
> Sorry, ( and thank you for responding) Poutnik, but it still seems to
> me that those observations include the fact that the farther we peer
> out into space, the longer ago in the past we are peering, and it is
> that fact that makes it appear that the Universe was expanding in the
> past, and the longer ago in the past we peer, the faster the Universe
> appears to be expanding.
>


--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

Poutnik
2012-10-08 01:43:25 EST

Poutnik from poutnik4nntp@gmail.com
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:52:05 +0200


> > That's very clear and concise. So if we must not relate the distance
> > with the time past, then the conclusion is that it is presently
> > thought that the Universe IS (presently, right now) expanding.
>
> You try to push the discussion beyond the point I was pointing out.
>
> >
> > What brings us to this conclusion? We OBSERVE that faraway galaxies
> > are red-shifted and moving away from us. We OBSERVE that the farther
> > away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. And
> > from these and further observations, we conclude that the Universe IS
> > (presently, right now) not only expanding, but expanding (presently,
> > right now) at an accelerating velocity.
>

Now I get your point.
Yes it is true for n Mp we get
how fast it was expanding n . 3.26 mil years ago.

But this alone does not give any information
about the trend of expansion.

Yes, from other observations we do,
but not the ones leading to Hubble constant.



--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

Poutnik
2012-10-08 01:50:56 EST

Poutnik from poutnik4nntp@gmail.com
posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:43:25 +0200


>
> Poutnik from poutnik4nntp@gmail.com
> posted Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:52:05 +0200
>
>
> > > That's very clear and concise. So if we must not relate the distance
> > > with the time past, then the conclusion is that it is presently
> > > thought that the Universe IS (presently, right now) expanding.
> >
> > You try to push the discussion beyond the point I was pointing out.
> >
> > >
> > > What brings us to this conclusion? We OBSERVE that faraway galaxies
> > > are red-shifted and moving away from us. We OBSERVE that the farther
> > > away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. And
> > > from these and further observations, we conclude that the Universe IS
> > > (presently, right now) not only expanding, but expanding (presently,
> > > right now) at an accelerating velocity.
> >
>
> Now I get your point.
> Yes it is true for n Mp we get
> how fast it was expanding n . 3.26 mil years ago.
>
> But this alone does not give any information
> about the trend of expansion.
>
> Yes, from other observations we do,
> but not the ones leading to Hubble constant.

As a paralel to curved 2D space of a bloated children balloon,
universe is like such a balloon, where we observe 2 surface points
are departing by speed proportional to their distance.

Such observation is result of status, when balloon universe
is expanding homogenously - same at every point
and constantly.

If it is expanding non homogenously or with changing exp. rate, we would
NOT get this Hubble proportionality.

Sure, in detailed view it is known
this proportionality is not exact
and the expansion is not constant.

It ia the same as realizing a line is not a line,
but a curve. Hubble constant itself says
the line is streight.

--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

Brad Guth
2012-10-08 09:37:40 EST
On Oct 7, 5:44 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:35:00 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Painius from starswir...@aol.com
> >posted Sat, 06 Oct 2012 07:12:17 -0400
>
> >> We know that one Mp is equal to a little more than three million
> >> light-years.  So using light-years, three million years ago, the
> >> Universe expanded about 74 km/s *faster* than it does now.
>
> >And this comes your mistakes.
> >You cannot freely convert light-years as distance to years as time,
> >unless you DO know you can.
>
> >The above just says at distance of 1 Mp = 3.26 mil LY
> >the universe is expanding wrt observer 74 km/s.
>
> >It has no relation to how fast it was expending 3.26 mil years ago.
>
> That's very clear and concise.  So if we must not relate the distance
> with the time past, then the conclusion is that it is presently
> thought that the Universe IS (presently, right now) expanding.
>
> What brings us to this conclusion?  We OBSERVE that faraway galaxies
> are red-shifted and moving away from us.  We OBSERVE that the farther
> away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.  And
> from these and further observations, we conclude that the Universe IS
> (presently, right now) not only expanding, but expanding (presently,
> right now) at an accelerating velocity.
>
> Sorry, ( and thank you for responding) Poutnik, but it still seems to
> me that those observations include the fact that the farther we peer
> out into space, the longer ago in the past we are peering, and it is
> that fact that makes it appear that the Universe was expanding in the
> past, and the longer ago in the past we peer, the faster the Universe
> appears to be expanding.
>
> When it comes to actually observing the space around us, I really
> don't see how one can separate the time thing from the space thing. So
> I understand what you said, which makes me think that the acceleration
> isn't really being measured, but only inferred.
>
> The farther away our observations get from Earth, the longer ago in
> the past we are observing.  How can this be separated in order to come
> up with an accurate measurement of the accelerated expansion?  It
> seems to me that the moment one separates out the time, the accuracy
> of measurement must go out the window.
>
> So if the Universe is (presently, right now) expanding at an
> accelerated rate, how long do you think it will be until scientists
> are able to measure the expansion here in local space?
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
> "If you really want to alter your life, alter your attitude of mind."

The expansion trend is simply an educated guess and postulation that
nothing has ever changed from the very get-go. In other words, the
initial mass of our universe being exactly the same from zero past
13.75e9 years as apparently never varied from its ongoing rate of
expansion, and of course this makes no perfect sense whatsoever,
unless gravity is merely a localized force that doesn't apply outside
of galaxies.

So, why are we still paying these guys to be telling us this stuff?

Why not reconsider the ongoing flow of aether, and/or the displacement
caused by quantum entangled photons, or the paramagnetic nature of
helium?

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron