|
 |
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> AFAIK that is not the consensus. I.e. if significant means a couple of
> times. If it means a P<.05 that is probably true.
If, according to you, the universe is expanding at velocity c (what does
that even mean?), and given that current measurements seem to indicate that
the expansion is actually accelerating, how do you explain this?
Two questions:
1) What do you mean by "expanding at a velocity of at most c"? Where is
this c velocity, and compared to what?
2) Since you have clearly agreed that the expansion of the universe is
not bound to speed limitations between objects, then what is the
phenomenon which limits the expansion of the universe to c?
In other words, you seem to say "yes, it is possible for two points in
the universe to recede faster than c from each other, but that's not
happening anywhere in the universe". Why not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
andrel wrote:
> There may be things that you know existed or must have existed once but
> now are outside of your observation forever.
I'm pretty sure those count as part of the "observable universe". They
have a causal influence on your observations.
>> Does something completely outside your causality exist? Is there an
>> actual definition you could come up with that would make "the
>> universe" bigger than "the observable universe"?
>
> As said, I think you can.
I'd like to hear it. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Warp wrote:
> on. In fact, Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain
> distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed
> of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance
> is about 14 billion light-years."
Here's an interesting question, tho: Consider the galaxies that are
receding at (1-epsilon)*c from us. Galaxies[1] that will cross the
boundary from timelike to spacelike distances in (say) the next year.
It can't accelerate faster than light, right? Is it going to go slower
and slower, like an object falling into a black hole will, from our
point of view?
Hmmm, thinking on it, if the expansion is caused by expanding space,
maybe time doesn't seem to slow down? Do you not get relativistic time
dilation from expanding space? If not, why do photons red-shift? If so,
why would we see any galaxy ever "cross" the speed of light as it recedes?
I did see an interesting speculation once that the 3-degree background
radiation was actually all the galaxies piled up against the lightspeed
barrier, but I have no idea how much sense that makes.
[1] Or planets, or specs of dust, or whatever's small enough for you to
accept this happens.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
