|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit forgalaxies
Jonathan wrote:
"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? Figuring out what the underlying rules are is next to impossible if you're looking at the hugely complicated set of interactions visible in a mirror. It's better to find out what the rules are for simple things, and work from there. Sylvia. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit forgalaxies
"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. It places constraints on how fast things can be moving relative to us. In particular, that they cannot be moving at more than c relative to us, though two objects in our frame of reference may be separating at mroe than c (thought not more than 2c). 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'. They may be outside our light cone as a result of inflation in the early universe, but that doesn't mean they're receding at more than c - just that the light from them hasn't had time to reach us since the big bang. Sylvia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit for galaxies
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Figuring out what the underlying rules are is next to impossible if you're looking at the hugely complicated set of interactions visible in a mirror. Because what's seen in the mirror is human intelligence, the most complex system in the known universe. And like a larger statistical sample yielding the better pattern, the most complex the universe has to offer best displays the universal ...behaviors..or patterns of the universe. It's better to find out what the rules are for simple things, and work from there. The search for simplicity and universal law begins with the most complex the universe has to offer. Complex as defined by Complexity Science. Which is where both universal types of motion, classical and quantum, are critically interacting. A linear frame of reference for the term complexity would be a sliding scale from zero to infinite. A non-linear frame of reference is quite different. Linear complexity zero infinity Non-Linear complexity static (simple) complex chaotic (simple) Don't you see, complexity on the component side yields simplicity in the system ..output or behavioral side. The diverse (complex) natural forest produces more stable behavior than the (simple) man-made forest. Stable behavior is simpler behavior. Emergent order is the result of this complexity, and emergent order is higher order. A random soup is a high level of complexity, from this any random disturbance will spontaneously create cyclic or higher order. And on we go, from the simplest to the most complex. An evolving universe, where complexity is the ultimate impetus for ever growing order. One will never be able to grasp the concepts of things like tornadoes or lightning by looking at water /or/ vapor alone. The higher level properties only emerge where complexity is the highest, where both opposites, water /and/ vapor, are intractably entangled (critically interacting) as in a cloud. Sylvia. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit for galaxies
Sylvia Else wrote:
"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. It places constraints on how fast things can be moving relative to us. In particular, that they cannot be moving at more than c relative to us, though two objects in our frame of reference may be separating at mroe than c (thought not more than 2c). The only constraint is on the motion of things in space. Things beyond the cosmic horizon can certainly be moving away at greater than c, but of course we will never be able to observe them since the space they're in is moving away at greater than c and nothing can get 'here' from 'there'. 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'. They may be outside our light cone as a result of inflation in the early universe, but that doesn't mean they're receding at more than c - just that the light from them hasn't had time to reach us since the big bang. No, light from there can *never* get here no matter how long you wait. The space its in is being carried away faster than the light can move towards us. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit for galaxies
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... It's better to find out what the rules are for simple things, and work from there. You say start with simple things and rules, but why not start with the simplist....patterns... instead? The simplist patterns (outputs) are the result of the highest levels of complexity, as defined by complexity science. Sylvia. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit forgalaxies
Greg Neill wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote: "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. It places constraints on how fast things can be moving relative to us. In particular, that they cannot be moving at more than c relative to us, though two objects in our frame of reference may be separating at mroe than c (thought not more than 2c). The only constraint is on the motion of things in space. Things beyond the cosmic horizon can certainly be moving away at greater than c, but of course we will never be able to observe them since the space they're in is moving away at greater than c and nothing can get 'here' from 'there'. 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'. They may be outside our light cone as a result of inflation in the early universe, but that doesn't mean they're receding at more than c - just that the light from them hasn't had time to reach us since the big bang. No, light from there can *never* get here no matter how long you wait. The space its in is being carried away faster than the light can move towards us. Doesn't sound right. It would imply that there are closer places that it can reach, but that having reached them, it can't reach us. For such a model to work, the universe would have to contain discrete subspaces. Sylvia. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit for galaxies
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Greg Neill wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: "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. It places constraints on how fast things can be moving relative to us. In particular, that they cannot be moving at more than c relative to us, though two objects in our frame of reference may be separating at mroe than c (thought not more than 2c). The only constraint is on the motion of things in space. Things beyond the cosmic horizon can certainly be moving away at greater than c, but of course we will never be able to observe them since the space they're in is moving away at greater than c and nothing can get 'here' from 'there'. 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'. They may be outside our light cone as a result of inflation in the early universe, but that doesn't mean they're receding at more than c - just that the light from them hasn't had time to reach us since the big bang. No, light from there can *never* get here no matter how long you wait. The space its in is being carried away faster than the light can move towards us. Doesn't sound right. It would imply that there are closer places that it can reach, but that having reached them, it can't reach us. For such a model to work, the universe would have to contain discrete subspaces. Sylvia. No, what he says is scientific orthodoxy. The subspaces do not have to be discreet. Imagine you have a car that can go 100 kph, and its on a giant racetrack (say 10,000 kms around). Now here is the even more unlikely scenario - the racetrack is expanding by getting 1,000 kms longer every hour. Wherever you start on the racetrack, there are some places you can potentially drive to, and other which you can't. You couldn't possibly ever reach the opposite point on a circular track, because it is receding at 500 kph and you can only drive at 100 kph. You could certainly however drive to a point only a few metres away. Everybody has their own private universe of points they can effectively drive to. (Breath) This begs quite a few questions, and on first viewing has some butt ugly aspects. The first is that if the Universe is expanding, how can we talk about some point in space at time t_1 being the same point in space at time t_2 ? Well, in some sense we can't, but that doesn't really matter to the maths. The second is the concept that objects are moving relative to us at faster than the speed of light, which they are. Indeed, this is another one of those delightful examples of "things" that appear to move faster than light, but do not involve information (causality) moving faster than light, and so in a sense validate Special Relativity (other examples are in quantum physics). The final one for me is the philosophical problem that there are places we can't in principle see or visit. That's not a short term problem. And that doesn't mean we can know nothing about it; when the Universe was 10^(-20) seconds old it was tiny, and there was information transfer. That is still detectable; indeed its why we think it exists at all, as the gravity models suggest the Universe is much larger than we can see. So, yes, unfortunately it is highly likely that most of the Universe is invisible to a telescope of any size, and we have no way even in principle of seeing them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has broken the distance limit forgalaxies
On Jan 13, 1:54*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: "Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Greg Neill wrote: Sylvia Else wrote: "Greg Neill" wrote in message . com... 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. It places constraints on how fast things can be moving relative to us.. In particular, that they cannot be moving at more than c relative to us, though two objects in our frame of reference may be separating at mroe than c (thought not more than 2c). The only constraint is on the motion of things in space. Things beyond the cosmic horizon can certainly be moving away at greater than c, but of course we will never be able to observe them since the space they're in is moving away at greater than c and nothing can get 'here' from 'there'. 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'. They may be outside our light cone as a result of inflation in the early universe, but that doesn't mean they're receding at more than c - just that the light from them hasn't had time to reach us since the big bang. No, light from there can *never* get here no matter how long you wait. *The space its in is being carried away faster than the light can move towards us. Doesn't sound right. It would imply that there are closer places that it can reach, but that having reached them, it can't reach us. For such a model to work, the universe would have to contain discrete subspaces. Sylvia. No, what he says is scientific orthodoxy. The subspaces do not have to be discreet. Imagine you have a car that can go 100 kph, and its on a giant racetrack (say 10,000 kms around). Now here is the even more unlikely scenario - the racetrack is expanding by getting 1,000 kms longer every hour. Wherever you start on the racetrack, there are some places you can potentially drive to, and other which you can't. You couldn't possibly ever reach the opposite point on a circular track, because it is receding at 500 kph and you can only drive at 100 kph. You could certainly however drive to a point only a few metres away. Everybody has their own private universe of points they can effectively drive to. WRONG!!! Sorry to burst your bubble, but this example is incorrect. The driver _CAN_ eventually reach any position on this racetrack, no matter how slowly he drives. Proof: In the first hour the giant racetrack is always no more than 11,000 kms around. The driver manages to travel 500 kilometers. This is [at least] 500/11,000 of the distance around the track. If the track is circular and you have a pointer in the center directed at the race car, you'll see that his car has made it [more than] 500/11,000 of the way around. In the second hour the giant racetrack is always no more than 12,000 kms around. The driver manages to travel another 500 kilometers. This is 500/12,000 of the distance around the track. The pointer is still rotating. In the third hour he manages 500/13,000 In the fourth hour he manages 500/14,000 Can you add up for us the total of the harmonic series: 500/11,000 + 500/12,000 + 500/13,000 + 500/14,000 + ... Is the sum of this series more than or less than 1? Is it, in fact, divergent? A problem with your attempted example is that part of the race track expansion takes place _behind_ the race car. The longer he races, the less expansion takes place in front of him and the more expansion takes place behind him. The driver only has to deal with the expansion in front. Now, if instead of increasing in length at a fixed rate of 1000 km / hour the track _doubled_ in length each hour we'd be summing a geometric series instead of a harmonic series and the prospect of a horizon would be very very real. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hubble telescope finds 'never-seen' galaxies | Oh No | Research | 15 | February 9th 10 06:51 PM |
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope chases unruly planet | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | June 22nd 05 08:12 PM |