100 Billion Planets in our Galaxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter CurtisHouse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Galaxies outside the observable universes were traveling faster than the speed of light!” …
Good grief…one more attempt.

Nothing can travel faster than light. Keep that in mind.
Space is expanding. Keep that in mind as well.
The further from us we get, the faster space expands. Hold that thought.
There is a point at which we can see no further. It’s the boundary of the observable universe. Log that in.

At that point, space is expanding at a rate which exceeds the speed of light. Note that nothing is moving faster than tbe speed of light. It’s that the space between things is getting bigger.
 
40.png
EndTimes:
“Galaxies outside the observable universes were traveling faster than the speed of light!” …
Good grief…one more attempt.

Nothing can travel faster than light. Keep that in mind.
Space is expanding. Keep that in mind as well.
The further from us we get, the faster space expands. Hold that thought.
There is a point at which we can see no further. It’s the boundary of the observable universe. Log that in.

At that point, space is expanding at a rate which exceeds the speed of light. Note that nothing is moving faster than tbe speed of light. It’s that the space between things is getting bigger.
I’m not a scientist, but isn’t space simply the distance between objects (stars, galaxies etc)? And if that space is increasing, does that not imply that the objects are indeed moving away from each other? And isn’t the rate at which space is expanding purely and simply the same rate at which those objects that define its boundaries are moving away from each other - or from us?

How can space be expanding at a rate which exceeds the speed of light if the objects which define its boundaries aren’t indeed moving away from each other - or from us - at a rate which is faster than the speed of light?
 
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
EndTimes:
“Galaxies outside the observable universes were traveling faster than the speed of light!” …
Good grief…one more attempt.

Nothing can travel faster than light. Keep that in mind.
Space is expanding. Keep that in mind as well.
The further from us we get, the faster space expands. Hold that thought.
There is a point at which we can see no further. It’s the boundary of the observable universe. Log that in.

At that point, space is expanding at a rate which exceeds the speed of light. Note that nothing is moving faster than tbe speed of light. It’s that the space between things is getting bigger.
I’m not a scientist, but isn’t space simply the distance between objects (stars, galaxies etc)? And if that space is increasing, does that not imply that the objects are indeed moving away from each other? And isn’t the rate at which space is expanding purely and simply the same rate at which those objects that define its boundaries are moving away from each other - or from us?
Let’s go back to the old standby of using the surface of a balloon to represent space. There’s a Point A marked on the ballon and a Point B. Now the points obviously cannot move. They’re each fixed in one spot. But an ant could start at A and move to B.

If the universe was static then the balloon would remain the same size and the ant would take the same time to move from A to B and back again. Because the distances would be the same. So let’s say it moves from A to B.

Now the balloon starts to get bigger to represent space expanding. The points are still static. They don’t move from their position on the balloon. They have no velocity. The ant did when it moved from one to the other but the dots didn’t. And they still don’t when the balloon is getting bigger.

But…obviously they move further apart from each other. And that’s the bit that’s tricky to get one’s head around. The distance between them grows but they are not moving. Kinda weird.

So when the ant moves back towards A the distance is getting bigger all the time so it will take longer to get back. And if the balloon expands quickly enough then it will never get back. The distance increases faster than it can travel.

Now the ant represents light leaving Universe Beta and heading towards Universe Alpha. At the very edge of the observable universe the rate of expansion is greater than the speed of light, so the light from Beta at that point never reaches Alpha.

So if the proposal that the universe is infinite is correct (and I think the accuracy of the prediction is within 0.4% from memory) then there is an infinite amount of universe on the other side of the boundary that we cannot see and will never see. And as we cannot travel faster than light we will never be able to access it.

So it serves no purpose as far as we are concerned. There may be ‘somebody’ out there. There may be an infinite number of ‘somebodys’ out there. But it has no use for us. It is, by definition, useless.
 
Last edited:
Good grief…one more attempt.
If you’re so bothered … why do you keep on returning?

I know the Physics…

Spatial Distance = Receding Time

You probably presume that what you "see" in Outer Space must all still Exist, yes?

_
 
Last edited:
We just saw galaxies collide with each other even though they are moving away from each other.
 
We just saw galaxies collide with each other even though they are moving away from each other.
Then they are obviously moving faster than the space between them is expanding. The greater the distance the faster the expansion so adjacent objects are hardly affected.
 
Now the balloon starts to get bigger to represent space expanding.
Suppose that as the balloon gets bigger, everything else gets bigger, including the ant. When space gets bigger, everything else expands according to the same rule.
Would this be detectable by the redshift?
 
I definitely believe that there are other worlds with life for a variety of reasons. I could dive into some if your interested but God seems pretty creative and loving.

Edit: sorry to finish my above sentence …God seems pretty creative and loving to make all of this and not make more.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
Now the balloon starts to get bigger to represent space expanding.
Suppose that as the balloon gets bigger, everything else gets bigger, including the ant. When space gets bigger, everything else expands according to the same rule.
Matter doesn’t expand. Only space.
 
40.png
Freddy:
Matter doesn’t expand.
Matter expands and contracts according to its speed through space.
Mass will increase and decrease but size won’t. That’s why you can’t travel at the speed of light because the mass (and the kinetic energy) would increase to infinity. And an increase in the expansion of space doesn’t mean that there’s an increase in relative velocity.

And while you’ve been reading this some more of the observable universe that we have never seen has dissapeared. So we will never see it. I’m still wondering why God made it…
 
We cannot fathom the mind of God nor His creation. In His Wisdom, he created all that is. We have no idea what other intelligent life forms exist in the universe.

The late Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, argued that science and religion revealed two kinds of truth – one factual and the other moral. He said each form of knowledge were valid within their own realm.
 
The late Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist, argued that science and religion revealed two kinds of truth – one factual and the other moral. He said each form of knowledge were valid within their own realm.
So religion is only valid in the realm of morals and is not valid in the factual realm?
 
Are you still saying it is disappearing? You have to show more than greater than c expansion to show we can’t get there.
 
40.png
Freddy:
Mass will increase and decrease but size won’t.
I thought that the length of an object obeys the rule:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
That equation shows the apparent decrease in length (not size) as speed increases.
 
So religion is only valid in the realm of morals and is not valid in the factual realm?
@AlNg: I’m not enough of an egghead to explain non-overlapping magisteria. That’s why I included the link. I hope that helps.
 
Are you still saying it is disappearing? You have to show more than greater than c expansion to show we can’t get there.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. Space is expanding at 68 km/s per megaparsec. So we need to go out to 300,000/68 megaparsecs to get to light velocity.

That’s 4,400 megaparsecs or 4,400 x 3.2 million light years equals 14,000 million light years or 14 billion light years (the universe is approx. 14 billion years old). Which you would think would be the radius of the observable universe. But we can see out to 46 billion light years as galaxies further out than 14 billion light years were sending out light when they were a lot closer. We’re seeing what they used to look like.

We’ll never see what they look like now as the distance between us is expanding faster than the speed of light. And galaxies that were past that point (14 billion light years) when they formed we have no knowledge of at all. They are literally invisible and unreachable and unknowable. They have no use to us.
 
Last edited:
Ant. Rubber rope. Paradox.

Sorry if that is abrupt but we covered this weeks ago. You need to show more than that space is expanding faster than c to say we can’t get somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Ant. Rubber rope. Paradox.

Sorry if that is abrupt but we covered this weeks ago. You need to show more than that space is expanding faster than c to say we can’t get somewhere.
I’ve shown you the science. I’ve just shown you the maths. I’ve better things to do than keep repeating myself.

Notwithstanding that you previously said that showing space was expanding faster than light was ALL that was required. Now it’s ‘more than that’. Forget it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top