 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2008Age of universe mistake
Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light years away. They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This would only be true if they were moved at the speed of light due to space expansion. Clearly space expansion has been much slower. I calculate it took 22 billion years of universal space expansion to bring those objects out to the 13 billion light years. Counting the time it took space expansion to cary the objects out the new age of the universe is 35 billion years or 22 billion years of expansion and 13 billion years for their light to return to us. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Lauteate 2008 On Mar 24, 7:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Lauteate 2008 The 13 billion light year distance return time for light will occur in space that is expanding. So while light is traversing space space is expanding along the way creating more distance for the light. The return time of light is then 22 billion years as opposed to 13 billion. According to this model the age of the uniiverse works out to be 44 billion. Mitch Raemsch Atronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light years away. They then conclude that is the age of the universe. But I must point out that they would have to have been expanding with space at the speed of light for that to be the age of the universe. No instead we must account for the time the universe has been expanding carrying them to their 13 billion light year distance. The universe expanded for 22 billion years to get the most distant objects there to 13 billion light years. Second; the return time of light is going to be greater than just 13 billion light years. Since expansion is going on all the time during light's transit through space there is extra distance to traverse before reaching us. This is another 22 billion years. To sum up: the universe expanded for 22 billion years in order that the most distant objects reach 13 billion light years distance. It then took another 22 billion years for light to traverse the expanding space of the universe to reach us now. Therefor the age of the universe is 44 billion years. Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 On Mar 25, 12:06 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Second; the return time of light is going to be greater than just 13 > billion light years. Why would the light return? Dwib On Mar 25, 12:06 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Second; the return time of light is going to be greater than just 13 > billion light years. | Why would the light return? Crank relativity says it must. In Newtonian mechanics, AB/(tB-tA) = c In crank relativity, 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c and we have to guess what tB is, generating big arguments about it. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif > On Mar 25, 12:06 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif If you are looking at an object 13 billion light years away, then you are seeing the object at the location it was 13 billion years ago.Where is that object now? On Mar 25, 6:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Dwib" <dwibd...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif | If you are looking at an object 13 billion light years away, then you | are seeing the object at the location it was 13 billion years | ago.Where is that object now? If you are looking at an object right under your nose: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg Is it broken and bent? On Mar 25, 1:06 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Atronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. They then conclude that is the age of the universe. But I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 DWH says: You are forgetting that objects at around 7 bly are separating from us at z = 1 (L/S), and the further away, the faster, so that objects at the limit of Hubbles' deep field are moving away in orthogonal directions in excess of 5.8 times light speed. If space were expanding, observers in galaxies moving apart in excess of z = 2 (twice light speed) would not be able to see each other. I just pointed out that this is not observed, and therefore the only explanation is that our local group of galaxies is situated at the center of the expanding universe. AND, it is expanding as evidenced by the rise times of the light curves of red shifted type Ia supernovae. Our galaxy and said local group only appear to be about 13.7 billion years old if we can give any credence to astronomers dating methods and all the trillions of red shifted galaxies have to be older than that the further they are from us.. These ideas are my original intellectual property and have been copyrighted since 1990. Dwain W. Higginbotham On Mar 24, 11:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Lauteate 2008 The audience is all making that arms-crossed-over-chest signal, indicating that they expect the survey didn't have any responses for that. Show me... " Clearly space expansion has been much slower." BZZZZZT! Thanks for playing. Mitch, consider the following example. Suppose two points are currently a distance of 1 million light years apart. And suppose space is expanding such that those two points are diverging at 1 percent of the speed of light. And suppose the expansion is uniform with location. Then consider two points 1 billion light years apart. If the two points 1E6 ly apart are expanding at .01 c, then two points 1000 times farther apart must be diverging 1000 times faster, and so 10 times c. This is the notion of the local horizon. If space is expanding at the same rate everywhere, then eventually you will find a distance beyond which points are moving away faster than c. This was a rather keen homework assignment in my fourth year relativity course. And what you find is that light from those places beyond the local horizon does not reach us. Further, the distance to the local horizon (as estimated by the farthest objects we can see) is not the only way to estimate the time since the big bang. There are lots of other problems with what you have posted, but that's a big enough one to suggest that you try using information instead of ignorance. Google up some cosmology pages and do some reading. Maybe even get a textbook. Socks > On Mar 24, 11:23 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > light from those places beyond the local horizon does not > reach us. DWH says: We must have posted about the same time. Please reply to my post #8. Regards. > Further, the distance to the local horizon (as estimated > by the farthest objects we can see) is not the only way [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pages and do some reading. Maybe even get a textbook. > Socks Puppet I have posted over the last 6 years in alt astronomy that the universe is older than 22 billion years. Its in Google. Those that think its younger don't know how to add Bert > Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Counting the time it took space expansion to cary LERN HAU TOO FUCKIGN SPELL INGLISH f.cking WORDS, YOU f.cking IDIOT > Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. 13.7 billion lightyears, jackass, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This > would only be true if they were moved at the speed of light due to > space expansion. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sapient.jpg > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Lauteate 2008 "Lauteate"? The f.cking imbecile types it out each time?  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 >> Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light >> years away. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Lauteate"? The f.cking imbecile types it out each time? On Mar 25, 4:23 am, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote: > Astronomers calculate the most distant objects to be 13 billion light > years away. They conclude that this is the age of the universe. This this is a distance not an age, you fool > would only be true if they were moved at the speed of light due to > space expansion. Clearly space expansion has been much slower. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Lauteate 2008 lauraete is more right than lauteate |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.