NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit for galaxies

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Are you guys painting yourselves into a corner? I think so.
Sam, when you say, "cannot see", you're presuming no EMR can
be received from Galaxy 1 to 2, yet Hubbles constant only red shifts.
We shouldn't find them moving at relative speeds greater than "c",
otherwise toss out SR and the Conservation of Mass-Energy Law,
as has been already done.

The Hubble constant tells us how fast space at a
given distance is expanding away from space at our
location. The matter in space moves along with this
so-called "Hubble Flow". This is why we say that
space is expanding.

Relativity does not place constraints upon how fast
regions of space may be moving with respect to
each other, only on how fast anything may move *in*
space.

Space beyond about 13.7 billion light years in any
direction is moving away from us at greater than c,
so light from anything past that distance will never
get here. That is our 'cosmic horizon'.


Why do people seem to assume that the 'answers' to the
grand questions of reality are to be found in an extreme?
Either quarks or quasars so to speak.

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that just the opposite is true?
That the answers are to be found in the critical interaction
between the opposite extremes in possibility?
That the best 'lens' of all to understand reality is a mirror?

And why do people seem to assume the simplest components
and most universal forces also are the place to search for
ultimate truths?

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that, just like a larger sample
produces the more accurate results, that the most complicated
in the universe, not the simplest, are the place to search
for fundamental law?

And why do people assume the most important information
is found in component properties? Hasn't it occurred to anyone
that universal behavior, not ultimate components, explains
our reality?

There are only two types of motion/behavior.

There is subcritical behavior like that of gravity
or a solid, tending to coalesce or simplify the system.
And there is it's opposite, supercritical behavior
like that of cosmic expansion or a gas, tending
to complicate the system.

Any real world system can be defined in terms of these
two opposing tendencies or behavior.

For a simple cloud, the subcritical behavior of condensation
is in an unstable equilibrium with it's opposite, the supercritical
behavior of vapor. When these opposites in behavior are
critically interacting, so that neither types dominates, then
the system....evolves...it produces emergent properties that
are not possible by either behavior alone. For instance
lightning and hurricanes etc.

In the most abstract, these two opposites in behavior
can be considered that which tends to create or
maintain order, or it's opposite of that which tends
to destroy order.

Or constraint vs freedom.

In attractor theory these two opposites are termed
generically as static and chaotic. But any system
at all can be defined in terms of the relationship
between these two universal tendencies.

The unstable equilibrium between static and chaotic
attractors spontaneously produces a third attractor
called dynamic.

Some examples..

Abstract systems.....

(emergent)
Static dynamic chaotic
(subcritical) (critical) (supercritical))


Real systems.......


Solid liquid gas
Condensation cloud evaporation (cloud)
Classical motion thermodynamics quantum motion (physics)
Particles inertia waves
Matter light energy
Dictatorship democracy anarchy (society)
Buyer market seller
Genetics selection mutation


Newton Darwin Heisenberg

Motion Life Energy


As in the unstable equilibrium between the opposites of science and
religion yields the emergent system property called philosophy.
A simple system would be one which is dominated by one or
the other opposites. A complex system would be one where the
behavior is the result of an unstable balance of the two. So that
both classical and quantum methods at once would be required
to fully describe the system.

Only complex systems produce emergence, which is the higher level
order or properties, such as intelligence emerging from life.
Or efficiency emerging from the competing forces in a market.

All higher level order, from stars to life, are the result of complexity
as described here, as being the critical interaction between
particle and wave like behavior.

So you see, the most complex the universe has to offer is the
source of fundamental law.

LIFE shows us how the physical universe works.

NOT the other way around. And if you still believe
that physics is the source of understanding life, you
are still mired deeply in a scientific Dark Age.
And still looking at the universe using a backwards
frame of reference.


Thanks for reading


Jonathan

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online text)
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/