Distances

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the farthest-away
galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.

The microwave background mapped by LAMBDA is believed to go back to an
estimated time I have heard is something like maybe 300,000 years after the
Bang.

Thanks,

ET

"g" wrote in
nk.net:

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the
farthest-away galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.


Somewhere between z=6.6 and z=7.0

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html

You can find this stuff yourself using google.

Klazmon.

SNIP

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"g" wrote in
nk.net:

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the
farthest-away galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.


Somewhere between z=6.6 and z=7.0

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html

You can find this stuff yourself using google.

Klazmon.

SNIP

Thank you. Got it.

Am not familiar with the term "z."

If 6.6 z = distance to that planet (at time light now reaching us left it)
And if NASA supported distance is 13 B light years
Then 6.6 z = 13 B light years
And z = a little more than 1/2 light year
Is that correct?

Continuing then, the question arises:

How do astrophysicists and cosmologists derive the stance that -- the
farther away a galaxy is from our own, faster it is speeding away from
us.

The point is this: Light that left that farthest galaxy some 13 billion
years
ago, left it at a time when it was speeding away from us at X rate of speed.

Now, 13,000,000,000 years later, we receive that light, and it tells us
what was happening 13,000,000,000 years ago. How do we calculate from
that anything about the characteristics of, or behavior of, that galaxy NOW?

The same question applies to any galaxy between Earth and any other
galaxy.

Does it not stand to reason that the farther away we "look," the farther
back
in time we receive light from? And -- if that is so -- then does this not
stand to reason that if the farther away we look (and hence the longer ago
the measurements are made) the faster things WERE speeding away from
us the data suggests NOT that the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING
UP but, rather, that it has been SLOWING DOWN?

Please understand that these questions do not come from an astronomer, nor
an astrophysicist, nor a physicist... but one who merely likes to read about
science.

SURELY no amateur would grasp a fallacy that all the experts would have
missed.

Therefore, I ask you and any and all others on this NG -- especially any who
is an astrophysicist or a cosmologist to PLEASE relieve me of the fallacies
that surely must abound in my reasoning, to cause me to be unable to make
sense of the statement that:

The farther away objects are from us in space, the faster they ARE moving
away from us (as opposed to WERE).


g

"g" wrote in message news:...

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"g" wrote in
nk.net:

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the
farthest-away galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.


Somewhere between z=6.6 and z=7.0

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html

You can find this stuff yourself using google.

Klazmon.

SNIP

Thank you. Got it.

Am not familiar with the term "z."

If 6.6 z = distance to that planet (at time light now reaching us left it)
And if NASA supported distance is 13 B light years
CORRECTION -- MEANT TO SAY GALAXY (g)
Then 6.6 z = 13 B light years
And z = a little more than 1/2 light year
Is that correct?

Continuing then, the question arises:

How do astrophysicists and cosmologists derive the stance that -- the
farther away a galaxy is from our own, faster it is speeding away from
us.

The point is this: Light that left that farthest galaxy some 13 billion
years
ago, left it at a time when it was speeding away from us at X rate of
speed.

Now, 13,000,000,000 years later, we receive that light, and it tells us
what was happening 13,000,000,000 years ago. How do we calculate from
that anything about the characteristics of, or behavior of, that galaxy
NOW?

The same question applies to any galaxy between Earth and any other
galaxy.

Does it not stand to reason that the farther away we "look," the farther
back
in time we receive light from? And -- if that is so -- then does this not
stand to reason that if the farther away we look (and hence the longer ago
the measurements are made) the faster things WERE speeding away from
us the data suggests NOT that the expansion of the universe is SPEEDING
UP but, rather, that it has been SLOWING DOWN?

Please understand that these questions do not come from an astronomer, nor
an astrophysicist, nor a physicist... but one who merely likes to read
about
science.

SURELY no amateur would grasp a fallacy that all the experts would have
missed.

Therefore, I ask you and any and all others on this NG -- especially any
who
is an astrophysicist or a cosmologist to PLEASE relieve me of the
fallacies
that surely must abound in my reasoning, to cause me to be unable to make
sense of the statement that:

The farther away objects are from us in space, the faster they ARE moving
away from us (as opposed to WERE).


g

"g" wrote in
nk.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"g" wrote in
nk.net:

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the
farthest-away galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.


Somewhere between z=6.6 and z=7.0

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html

You can find this stuff yourself using google.

Klazmon.

SNIP

Thank you. Got it.

Am not familiar with the term "z."


It is a measure of the redshift believed to be due to the general expansion
of the universe. See

http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/basi.../redshifts.asp

The high Z team:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/R...nova/home.html


Methods of obtaining astronomical distances:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm


If 6.6 z = distance to that planet (at time light now reaching us left
it) And if NASA supported distance is 13 B light years
Then 6.6 z = 13 B light years
And z = a little more than 1/2 light year
Is that correct?

No.


Continuing then, the question arises:

How do astrophysicists and cosmologists derive the stance that -- the
farther away a galaxy is from our own, faster it is speeding away from
us.

By comparing redshift against distances measured by other methods. See the
UCLA link above. It used to be, that this comparison could only be done to
relatively nearby galaxies using the Cepheid variable method but the Type
Ia supernovae method allows comparison to much greater distance.




The point is this: Light that left that farthest galaxy some 13
billion years
ago, left it at a time when it was speeding away from us at X rate of
speed.

Now, 13,000,000,000 years later, we receive that light, and it tells
us what was happening 13,000,000,000 years ago. How do we calculate
from that anything about the characteristics of, or behavior of, that
galaxy NOW?

The same question applies to any galaxy between Earth and any other
galaxy.

Does it not stand to reason that the farther away we "look," the
farther back
in time we receive light from? And -- if that is so -- then does this
not stand to reason that if the farther away we look (and hence the
longer ago the measurements are made) the faster things WERE speeding
away from us the data suggests NOT that the expansion of the universe
is SPEEDING UP but, rather, that it has been SLOWING DOWN?


Read the link I gave for the High Z team.



SNIP


Klazmon.

With utmost respect and deference to your superior
knowledge on these issues, I cannot help but ponder what
information about the current status of flight and space
exploration you and I could obtain, if the ONLY information
we had to base it on were films of the Wright Brothers'
experiments with flying machines in 1900-1903.

And, concomitantly, I cannot help but wonder what is
the spectral shift we might find in light being emitted from
the most galaxy most distant detected by us today, rather
than light that left that galaxy 13,000,000,000 years ago.

But please do not be impatient with me on this question, as
it serves only to motivate learning for now.

Your guidance to links providing information on the
parameters involved is ENORMOUSLY appreciated.
Shall get back to you on this, and other questions, after
making a thorough study of all the information you guided
to.

Until then, THANK YOU !

G




"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"g" wrote in
nk.net:


"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"g" wrote in
nk.net:

Please, if you know, provide the estimated distant to the
farthest-away galaxy so far detected -- also source link on
Internet if you have it handy.


Somewhere between z=6.6 and z=7.0

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html

You can find this stuff yourself using google.

Klazmon.

SNIP

Thank you. Got it.

Am not familiar with the term "z."


It is a measure of the redshift believed to be due to the general
expansion
of the universe. See

http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/proj/basi.../redshifts.asp

The high Z team:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/R...nova/home.html


Methods of obtaining astronomical distances:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm


If 6.6 z = distance to that planet (at time light now reaching us left
it) And if NASA supported distance is 13 B light years
Then 6.6 z = 13 B light years
And z = a little more than 1/2 light year
Is that correct?

No.


Continuing then, the question arises:

How do astrophysicists and cosmologists derive the stance that -- the
farther away a galaxy is from our own, faster it is speeding away from
us.

By comparing redshift against distances measured by other methods. See the
UCLA link above. It used to be, that this comparison could only be done to
relatively nearby galaxies using the Cepheid variable method but the Type
Ia supernovae method allows comparison to much greater distance.




The point is this: Light that left that farthest galaxy some 13
billion years
ago, left it at a time when it was speeding away from us at X rate of
speed.

Now, 13,000,000,000 years later, we receive that light, and it tells
us what was happening 13,000,000,000 years ago. How do we calculate
from that anything about the characteristics of, or behavior of, that
galaxy NOW?

The same question applies to any galaxy between Earth and any other
galaxy.

Does it not stand to reason that the farther away we "look," the
farther back
in time we receive light from? And -- if that is so -- then does this
not stand to reason that if the farther away we look (and hence the
longer ago the measurements are made) the faster things WERE speeding
away from us the data suggests NOT that the expansion of the universe
is SPEEDING UP but, rather, that it has been SLOWING DOWN?


Read the link I gave for the High Z team.



SNIP


Klazmon.

"g" wrote in
ink.net:

With utmost respect and deference to your superior
knowledge on these issues, I cannot help but ponder what
information about the current status of flight and space
exploration you and I could obtain, if the ONLY information
we had to base it on were films of the Wright Brothers'
experiments with flying machines in 1900-1903.


Hey! I'm just an interested amateur.

And, concomitantly, I cannot help but wonder what is
the spectral shift we might find in light being emitted from
the most galaxy most distant detected by us today, rather
than light that left that galaxy 13,000,000,000 years ago.


Some of this cosmology gets really confusing. The problem is that the
concept of distance in a cosmological sense is not so straightforward.
Ned Wright has a good article on all this stuff at:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

Note that the redshift z is not linear with distance.

Dnow = (c/Ho)ln(1+z)

Where Ho is Hubble's constant.

But please do not be impatient with me on this question, as
it serves only to motivate learning for now.

Your guidance to links providing information on the
parameters involved is ENORMOUSLY appreciated.
Shall get back to you on this, and other questions, after
making a thorough study of all the information you guided
to.

Until then, THANK YOU !


Well thanks or the kind words.

Klazmon.



G


SNIP

"g" wrote in message
nk.net...


Llanzlan,

I am curious about the suffix on your email address: .govt.
Does that indicate you are employed in a government agency.
Also, your name puzzles me. It has a Nordic ring to it.
Scandinavian, perhaps?

Am not prying. And am not asking details.

For an amateur, you appear to have done a lot of homework.

The questions at this stage are the easy background ones,
getting details as underpinning for some mind-bending ones
I want to take to the heads of the physics and mathematics
departments of a university. (The nearest university to my
home is only fifteen minutes away, but has no graduate
programs in these subjects; but it's a place to start.)

As you know, the constancy of light is not ubiquitous but
merely constant for any and all frames of reference. The
logical implication of this is that the speed of light expands or
contracts to accommodate each individual frame of reference
in which it originates and terminates, or in which it is absorbed,
or refracted, or from which it is reflected.

This, of course, is one of the bases for the concept of "relativity
of time and motion," as well as relativity of the speed of light.

In trying to make calculations with respect to multiple frames
of reference, such a thing as "distance" between the
source of a particular segment of a ray of light and a given arrival
point of that segment, is as nebulous as comparing roller skates to
marshmallows.

The paradox of how Zeno's arrow could, at any point in its
trajectory be in a single place pales by comparison to the question
of a calculation of the trajectory of a spherical wave of light
moving outward for 13 billion years, from stars that surely have
burned out long before a tiny band of that sphere arrives (is
experienced) at Earth, where it is now, while the source has had
13 billion years to move far from where it was when the detected
light started its journey. During the intervening time the entire
universe is believed to have expanded to at least ten times the
size at the beginning, the sphere of light has expanded by that
amount multiplied times the speed of light, light ITSELF has
expanded in correlation the expansion of the entirety, and the
total mass of Earth is at least ten times as great as it would have
been (although the dust that gathered to make it came from
countless stars that were born, burned out and went super nova
while that sphere of light was spreading out.

The size of a photon in the last day of that travel might be larger
than when it started out from that distant galaxy by a number
having more zeros than can even be described.

Sorry. Didn't mean to get verbose.

But there are several (maybe up to a dozen) logical conclusions
that can be drawn from some of these disparate variables.

If you are interested, I'll let you know when I get the paper
pulled together sufficiently to take it to the university.

Thanks again.

g

"g" wrote in news:3tk5e.2501$lP1.2155
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


"g" wrote in message
nk.net...


Llanzlan,

I am curious about the suffix on your email address: .govt.
Does that indicate you are employed in a government agency.
Also, your name puzzles me. It has a Nordic ring to it.
Scandinavian, perhaps?

Am not prying. And am not asking details.


Google 'Doc Smith Skylark Series'.


For an amateur, you appear to have done a lot of homework.


Not really. Just a keen amateur astronomer.

The questions at this stage are the easy background ones,
getting details as underpinning for some mind-bending ones
I want to take to the heads of the physics and mathematics
departments of a university. (The nearest university to my
home is only fifteen minutes away, but has no graduate
programs in these subjects; but it's a place to start.)

As you know, the constancy of light is not ubiquitous but
merely constant for any and all frames of reference. The
logical implication of this is that the speed of light expands or
contracts to accommodate each individual frame of reference
in which it originates and terminates, or in which it is absorbed,
or refracted, or from which it is reflected.

I don't follow your meaning here. The current theory as I understand it
is that the speed of light in vaccuum is not only contant in all frames
of reference but ubiquitous as well ( I gather there was a bit of fuss a
couple of years ago about the possibility that the fine structure
constant was slightly different a few billions years ago, possibly
implying a small difference to the speed of light - AFAIK that hasn't
been confirmed). Light can be effectively slowed down in a transparent
material such as a lens but that is due to the interaction of the light
with the material.


This, of course, is one of the bases for the concept of "relativity
of time and motion," as well as relativity of the speed of light.

In trying to make calculations with respect to multiple frames
of reference, such a thing as "distance" between the
source of a particular segment of a ray of light and a given arrival
point of that segment, is as nebulous as comparing roller skates to
marshmallows.

I wouldn't say it is nebulous. The equations of special and general
relativity appear to give the right answers as far as anyone can tell. Of
course new experiments are being done to test that all the time. An
interesting one that is underway right now is Gravity Probe B:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/


The paradox of how Zeno's arrow could, at any point in its
trajectory be in a single place pales by comparison to the question
of a calculation of the trajectory of a spherical wave of light
moving outward for 13 billion years, from stars that surely have
burned out long before a tiny band of that sphere arrives (is
experienced) at Earth, where it is now, while the source has had
13 billion years to move far from where it was when the detected
light started its journey. During the intervening time the entire
universe is believed to have expanded to at least ten times the
size at the beginning, the sphere of light has expanded by that
amount multiplied times the speed of light, light ITSELF has
expanded in correlation the expansion of the entirety, and the
total mass of Earth is at least ten times as great as it would have
been (although the dust that gathered to make it came from
countless stars that were born, burned out and went super nova
while that sphere of light was spreading out.

The size of a photon in the last day of that travel might be larger
than when it started out from that distant galaxy by a number
having more zeros than can even be described.

Sorry. Didn't mean to get verbose.

But there are several (maybe up to a dozen) logical conclusions
that can be drawn from some of these disparate variables.

If you are interested, I'll let you know when I get the paper
pulled together sufficiently to take it to the university.

Thanks again.


I'm sure I will hear about it if it turns out to be good.

Klazmon.

g

I don't follow your meaning here. The current theory as I understand it
is that the speed of light in vaccuum is not only contant in all frames
of reference but ubiquitous as well.

You are right, of course. Semantics are clearer in speaking of a single
frame of reference, and all things occurring in it. As between one frame
of reference and another, what may true endogenously to one is not
necessarily true exogenously as comparing the two. Also, the increments
of time are too small for most technology to measure with sufficient
accuracy at the speed of light, so this is only a thought experiment.

1. Let a strobe light be flashing on and off at the top of a tower at the
rate
of one half second on and one half second off;

2. Let an aircraft be on a landing strip level with it (on top of a
nearby
mountain, say) and pointing toward that light source;

3. Let a detector on top of the aircraft be 50 feet from a second
detector
on the top of its rudder (and let the two be offset just sufficiently
to
center of alignment that when the A/C nose is aimed directly at a
light source the forward detector does not block the light from the
rearmost):

4. Let it be assumed these detectors, together with recording equipment
are technologically capable of recording precisely to the nth degree
the
instants of intercept and terminus of a flash of light from the
strobe;

5. When the aircraft is at rest with respect to the earth's spin (and
thus,
for immediate purposes, in the same frame of reference with the
strobe light) the time lapse between arrival of onset and terminus
of detection of a flash is one-half second for the forward detector
and one-half second for the rear detector. But the beginning and
ending times for the rearward detector lag those of the forward one
by the amount of time it takes the light to travel the additional
fifty
feet from source to detector;

6. Now let that aircraft take off, circle around, and do the experiment
again, while flying directly toward the light source at 800 mph
ground
speed. Now the light source and aircraft are in different frames of
reference;

7. Again, let the detectors in the nose of the aircraft detect the
instants of
onset and terminus of a flash which, for the light source is one-half
second;

8. According to current theory, light from the source travels, with
respect
to its frame of reference at C;

9. According to current theory, light from the front detector of the
aircraft
to the rear detector travels in its frame of reference at C;

10. With respect to the light source's frame of reference, however, the
distance from the aircraft's front detector and its rear detector is
less
than fifty feet by the distance the aircraft has closed that
distance, at
the rate of 800 mph during the span of one half second;

11. With respect to the aircraft, light has traveled fifty feet less zero,
in
one-half second;

12. With respect to the light source, light has traveled fifty feet less
several
inches, in that same one-half second.

If the speed of light is ubiquitous for EACH frame of reference, and two
frames
of reference are not the same, then that is not the same as ubiquitous AS
BETWEEN THE TWO.

It took a long time (beginning before Newton, and still continuing today)
for science to wrap itself around calculations of things in motion with
reference to one another, yet viewed as occurring as parts of a single
system.

It is taking even longer for science to "think through" the dynamics of
different frames of reference as systems in which what is true of the one
is not true for the other.

Most humans like to think in terms of things which are true in the frame
of reference in which they live (not only physically but also emotionally,
socially, psychologically, etc.) as being true for all others. For most of
history it has not been necessary for us to make cross-frame calculations.

At the level technology has provided today, however, some humans, at
least, are having to learn to leap back and forth between frames of
reference
that are increasingly unalike.

What is true in frame A, and equally true in frame B -- when A and B are
not traveling at the same speed (or are different in certain other
characteristics)
can be contradictory as B's internal reality is viewed not from within
itself
but from within A's.

Perhaps I have not said much that is clear. It seems good exercise of the
imagination to try to envision cross-frame dynamics -- trying to hold in the
mind two dissimilar dynamic systems at once, and maintaining reason; and
it seems good exercise of articulation skills to try to speak of such
things.

If I have not thought through things clearly here and/or have not
articulated
about them clearly, I continue onward in hopes of maybe getting better at
both, eventually, if that is meant to be.

(:)

g




9. With respect to the frame of reference of the aircraft (flying toward
the light source)
the light has traveled fifty feet;

10. With respect to the light source, the distance the light has traveled
is 50 feet LESS
the distance the aircraft has shortened the distance between itself
and the light source
during onset and terminus;

11. If the detector on the aircraft

12. If the light