A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 13th 10, 02:32 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 03:37 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 03:42 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 04:21 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 04:39 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Greg Neill[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 605
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 04:41 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 06:57 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 07:54 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old January 13th 10, 06:37 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.space.policy,sci.math
jbriggs444
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hubble telescope finds 'never-seen' galaxies Oh No Research 15 February 9th 10 07:51 PM
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope chases unruly planet Jacques van Oene News 0 June 22nd 05 08:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.