Posted by
lrudolph on
Oct 25, 2013; 2:05am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Most-Distant-Galaxy-What-s-wrong-with-this-statement-tp7584094p7584099.html
And so? Matter/energy can't move faster than 1 light year per year, but the expansion of the
universe isn't making any matter/energy move in its local frame, it's just putting more space-
time between the local frames of various different bits of matter/energy.
I mean, consider the size and state of the universe in the immediate aftermath of the Big
Bang. Whole lotta space appearing, stuff all over the place getting separated from other
stuff at supraluminal velocities without contradiction. Not so? (I don't even play an
astrophysicist on TV, but I roomed with one for two years of college, and later dated another
[long since moved to Los Alamos to do goodness knows what besides marrying a lawyer, but
probably not astrophysics; maybe fusion?]. So I'm just talking. But it sounds good to me.)
> (30-13.1) / 13.1 = 1.29 light-years / year.
>
> -- rec --
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM, <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > From the BBC at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24637890> > > (today)
> > >
> > > /Because it takes light so long to travel from the outer edge of the
> > > Universe to us, the galaxy appears as it was 13.1 billion years ago (its
> > > distance from Earth of 30 billion light-years is because the Universe is
> > > expanding)./
> >
> > I don't see much wrong with it (though I don't know if it's a true
> > statement).
> > "Galaxy X was 13.1 billion light-years from here-and-now, along a
> > light-like
> > geodesic, when it emitted the radiation we are presently detecting. The
> > present
> > location of Galaxy X (assuming the truth of present physical theories,
> > etc.) is,
> > partly because the Universe has been expanding, 30 billion light-years from
> > here-and-now, in the sense that (with the same disclaimer) radiation we are
> > presently emitting will be detectable at Galaxy X in 30 billion years."
> > Does
> > my attempt at paraphrase go beyond, or not as far as, the original? If
> > not,
> > what's wrong with the paraphrase?
> >
> > Lee Rudolph
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> >
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com