Reggie Jax, thanks for enlightening me...

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by exodus 31315, Aug 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Neat new data, I'm starting to give this the go ahead in my cosmology, if, and only if, they do subsequent tests year after year toshow that the shift is growing greater, but still, this doesn't mean that dark energy is going to be forever expansive, I still believe we are just in the explosiony part, yet to be sucked back together...

    What I mean about the older universe thing is more a matter of perception of time, I'm saying the universe is at least twice as the light year lengths we can see, the light we see from the farthest objects happened 15 billion years ago, so whatever its doing right now.would be observable to our point in space another length if that time. The object has existed, to itself for 30 billion years, but we've only perceived half of its life, the object's present is actually our distant future, you can't unexist something on the scale of time when it transcends our ability to perceive
    test
  2. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    i imagine time as a drawn circle inside a triangle with a happy face drawn in it. Looks like a dude with a funny beard and haircut whos smiling.

    This leads to nosebleeds and Grand Mal Siezures but i cope.
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    why do you have a high standard of evidence for the expansion of the universe but not for the idea that we're 'in the explosiony part, yet to be sucked back together?'

    i really don't see how you come to this conclusion.

    if we see a star that's 15 billion light years away, that means the light has been traveling 15 billion years. but that 15 billion year journey started precisely 15 billion years ago! so the star we're seeing is the actual image from the distant past. if somehow that star managed to survive the 15 billion years from back then till the present, and neither it nor us were moving, then we'd be able to see the 2012 version of that star in another 15 billion years. that doesn't mean the star is in the future. it means we can't see its present state because the light hasn't gotten here yet.
    test
  4. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Well, there's no need for evidence when, to me at least its a fairly obvious outcome due to the constant of gravity, I am open to changing my opinion if enough evidence is presented

    And for the time thing, I know the star will be gone, probably is already, I mean figuratively viewing it... but when you say the 2012 version of whatever that object is, right now, where that object is, is 30 billion years old to itself. It is right now emitting its "information" that we would see in 15 billion years as 30 billion years old, therefore, right now, that object is 30 billion years old, , our "time" is just not there yet
    test
  5. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    gravity seems to be factored in to the equations.

    The Expanding Universe

    it's a relatively weak force, and if the universe is not dense enough then gravity is not enough to pull it back together.

    your math doesn't add up. right now it is emitting information that we would see in 15 billion years as 15 billion years old. the original light that it emitted which we're seeing today would then be 30 billion years old, and would have traveled another 15 billion light years beyond us for a total of 30 billion light years traveled from the original source of the light.
    test
  6. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Dude, it is emitting the 30 billion year old information right now, where it is at, what we are seeing now is 15 billion year old information, while that information was traveling here, or aging, so was the object, the now of that object has existed already 30 billion years, has to have, in order for it to right now be emitting information that we will see as 30 billion years old, its not a matter of math, its perception of time
    test
  7. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    The Distance Scale of the Universe
    test
  8. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i don't know what you mean by 'emitting 30 billion year old information'.

    lets assume for simplicity that neither object moves or has moved. the light from 15 billion years ago has just reached us. new light is still being emitted. in 15 billion years time, that new light will reach us and will likewise be 15 billion years old. thats how long it takes it to reach here, so that's how old it will be. the old light will then be 15 billion light years beyond us, being viewed by someone else who is 30 billion light years from the original source, and that light at that point in time will indeed be 30 billion years old. and so will the universe. so basically in 15 billion years time, the universe would be 30 billion years old. there's no paradox here.

    i'm confused as to where our disconnect is. you agree that the light only took 15 billion years to travel here, yet you seem to suggest the galaxy that emitted it has aged 30 billion years in that 15 billion years time.
    test
  9. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    this link gives a more accurate breakdown of what we're talking about, and seems to go directly against what you're saying from as far as i can tell.

    from your link:
    the current distance is 26 billion light years, but the time that has passed is only 13 billion.

    from the break down of the 4 different distance scales:
    test
  10. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Its the age of the view, not the object, or event, is existing at a disproportionate perception of now... for us

    Wait... if everything will eventually be expanding outward faster than the doped of light, won't the events eventually surpass their own light, rendering the entire universe at that point in space time an essentially inverted black hole
    test
  11. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the age of the view is dictated by how much time has passed since the light was emitted. it says that it is a measure of time right in the link you cited.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)