Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: There is no "Hubble's Law", and there is also no "Lemaitre's Law".

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8

    There is no "Hubble's Law", and there is also no "Lemaitre's Law".

    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,687

    Streccchhh

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    You are assuming that d=vt, and that the distant galaxies are all movong at the same speed. They are not. The space (d) between us and them is consstantly inreasing as the universe expands. Thus their apparent speed (v) increases with distance.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    As it is an observational law, and you don't dispute the observations, I don't see how you can deny its existence.

    One could argue the interpretation. And, for a long time, people did. IT was all the other evidence, in particular the CMB, that lead to the alternatives being dropped.

    So, in your model (it is not clear to me what your model is: all galaxies have the same velocity?) what is the cause of the CMB?

    Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time.
    No, that is not what it implies.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,687

    Heh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d. Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    I think you are quoting Max Tegmark out of context. Could you please be a little more specific?
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8

    Read Max Tegmark on "Hubble's law!

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    I think you are quoting Max Tegmark out of context. Could you please be a little more specific?
    I'm absolutely n o t quoting Tegmark "out of context". Here is what he writes. Unfortunately I own only the German edition of his 2014 book "Our Mathematical Universe". So I have to translate from the German. Chapter 3 paragraph "Our universe is really expanding"; Quote: "If a galaxy is moving from us, we can suspect that it was much closer to us in the past. How long ago? If you observe a car, moving away after a bank robbery, you can calculate the time when it left the bank, by dividing its distance through its velocity. If you do this calculation for a galaxy that moves away, Hubble's law gives uns the answer d/v = 1/H, which is valid for all galaxies. Modern measurement yields the answer 1/H = 14 billions of years." Note that the outcome results from applying the equation v = d/t only in both cases: t = d/v; no "Hubble's law" or "Hubble's constant" is applied, since H = 1/t, and the required time is t = 1/H!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    The only thing ever "observed" is "redshift". Everything else ("velocity" and "motion" of galaxies) is interpretation. Therefore, Hubble's alleged law is n o t an "observational law" as you seem to believe. It is true, however, that many science writers loosely are asserting that "in 1929 Hubble observed that the galaxies move away from us". Cf. Stephen Hawking (1988), A Brief History of Time. But this has never been true; it is just written to make the uninitiated believe in it. - I propose no "model". I only point to the fact that the simple application of the equation v = d/t yields everything that can be obtained by applying the "Hubble law", because H is 1/t, and concequently the equation v = d/t = d x 1/t is equal to v = d x H. That is all. Hubble's law does not contain or teach anything beyond the equation v = d/t. It is simply the equation v = d/t = d x 1/t using a different symbol H instead of 1/t.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    No. That is not my subject. Instead, I am showing that Hubble's asserted law v = Hd contains no information of anything beyond the equation v = d x 1/t because 1/t is just H, so we have v = dH again. That is all.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
    As Strange has already noted, the "Hubble law" is observational, relating observed redshifts and estimates of distance.

    The interpretation of the observed redshifts as "velocities" is just that, an interpretation. And as such it must be done within a theoretical framework.

    (As must the estimates of distance of course, which is one reason why such enormous efforts - by a great many independent astronomers - have been made to develop consistent estimates).

    Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time. Recently Max Tegmark has shown that this relation holds as well if a car is observed, velocity known, distance covered also known, to calculate the time since the start of the car (see Max Tegmark, "Our Mathematical Universe", 2014). Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not. Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not. The case would be different if the time calculated by the v/d relation of different galaxies would be the same for all these different galaxies. In this case, the galaxies would indeed have begun their voyage at the very same time. But this cannot be observed, and never has been. Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    If the theoretical framework for interpreting the observed redshifts is General Relativity, then those redshifts are not "velocities" (well, a small component of them likely are, up to ~400 km/s perhaps, and that component can be either positive or negative).

    Perhaps you would reconsider re-writing your ATM idea, so that it explicitly incorporates the role of interpretation? I would also suggest that you do not need anything Max Tegmark wrote; your ATM idea should stand on its own two feet (so to speak).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    I'm absolutely n o t quoting Tegmark "out of context". Here is what he writes. Unfortunately I own only the German edition of his 2014 book "Our Mathematical Universe". So I have to translate from the German. Chapter 3 paragraph "Our universe is really expanding"; Quote: "If a galaxy is moving from us, we can suspect that it was much closer to us in the past. How long ago? If you observe a car, moving away after a bank robbery, you can calculate the time when it left the bank, by dividing its distance through its velocity. If you do this calculation for a galaxy that moves away, Hubble's law gives uns the answer d/v = 1/H, which is valid for all galaxies. Modern measurement yields the answer 1/H = 14 billions of years." Note that the outcome results from applying the equation v = d/t only in both cases: t = d/v; no "Hubble's law" or "Hubble's constant" is applied, since H = 1/t, and the required time is t = 1/H!
    But Hubble's law defines the observed relationship between d and v that results in t being the same for all galaxies.

    Also, note that treating the redshifts as being due to velocity creates problems. For example, we can observe galaxies that have a recessional speed greater than the speed of light. This makes the "car" analogy unrealistic.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    No, Hubble's so-called law does not "define an observed relationship between d and v", as you believe. The only thing "observed" is "redshift"; everything else is interpretation. Next objection: The time t resulting of d/v is n o t "the same for all galaxies", as you believe. It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time. For the galaxies observed by Hubble it is still about 2 billions of years today! Note, by the way, that the t resulting from d/v according to mathematics cannot be a constant : namely, since v is an invariant, and d is a variable, the quotient v/d must also be a variable. No way out!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    No, Hubble's so-called law does not "define an observed relationship between d and v", as you believe. The only thing "observed" is "redshift"; everything else is interpretation. Next objection: The time t resulting of d/v is n o t "the same for all galaxies", as you believe. It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time. For the galaxies observed by Hubble it is still about 2 billions of years today! Note, by the way, that the t resulting from d/v according to mathematics cannot be a constant : namely, since v is an invariant, and d is a variable, the quotient v/d must also be a variable. No way out!
    My bold. Can you refer us to some reliable published data?

    It is my understanding that in the 1920s the distances to the relatively nearby galaxies were greatly underestimated for a variety of reasons. Improved observations since then have cleared that up.

    Are you asserting that the redshift is the same for all galaxies, regardless of distance? Your printed words here certainly give that impression. Things such as saying v is an invariant.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    Please stick to my argument. It has nothing to do with "General Relativity", but only with the alleged "Hubble's law" v = Hd, which is basic mechanics: Velocity, distance, and H = 1/time, in interdependence. Since H = 1/t, the equation v = Hd is identical with the equation v = d/t. That is all.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    Please stick to my argument.

    No, Ed. You post the words, you choose to have your idea challenged here, and you are required to answer pertinent questions. If you don't want something questioned, don't bring it up. You've read our ATM rules, right? Also, please indicate in your post which post you are responding to, either by using the quote function or some other way. Just so we don't get confusion over what is an answer to which question.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    No, I'm not assuming that the objects are all moving at the same speed. I'm just showing that the quotient d/v = t for an object moving with velocity v gives the time it took this object to cover the distance d with velocity v. Now, since the alleged "Hubble's law" v = dH does nothing else but calculate the d/v of objects moving with velocity v it cannot yield any other result but the time t it took the object to cover the distance d with velocity v. The equation generating this result is just v = d/t, even when the factor 1/t is symbolized by H.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post

    No, Ed. You post the words, you choose to have your idea challenged here, and you are required to answer pertinent questions. If you don't want something questioned, don't bring it up. You've read our ATM rules, right? Also, please indicate in your post which post you are responding to, either by using the quote function or some other way. Just so we don't get confusion over what is an answer to which question.
    Thank you. Being new here, I was a bit confused about which function to use when responding. Now I think I've got it. I will use the "quote function" from nopw on to make clear what I'm responding to.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    Please stick to my argument. It has nothing to do with "General Relativity", but only with the alleged "Hubble's law" v = Hd, which is basic mechanics: Velocity, distance, and H = 1/time, in interdependence. Since H = 1/t, the equation v = Hd is identical with the equation v = d/t. That is all.
    "basic mechanics" works in a universe where what I might call "Newtonian physics" rules.

    In the universe we live in, Newtonian physics is a good approximation in many respects, but does not work well for trying to understand the large scale structure (etc) of the universe. For this, General Relativity has been shown to be consistent with all relevant observations (and experiments).

    Also, please do not conflate "v" or "velocity" with what the Hubble law actually is about; and that is, once again, an association between observed redshifts and estimated distances.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    Thank you. Being new here, I was a bit confused about which function to use when responding. Now I think I've got it. I will use the "quote function" from nopw on to make clear what I'm responding to.
    Thank you but please do take some time to familiarize yourself with our rules, as suggested by slangís rhetorical question. Responding to moderation within the thread...whether to argue with or otherwise comment upon the moderation...is against those rules, unless youíve been specifically asked to respond.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,304
    It is my understanding that it is well documented that Hubble and Lemaitre knew about redshift measurements that increased along with the estimated distances to the respective galaxies, in a manner that was at least approximately linear. Ed Dellian, a direct question. Are you of the opinion that this documentation is wrong, and that they did not observe any such thing?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
    Well, your first sentence is either misleading, or just wrong, in a couple respects. AFAIK, the redshifts were interpreted as "recession velocities," not "escape velocities." This interpretation has since changed, but that's another topic.

    And "the idea to correlate the redshifts... with the distances" was not "to obtain a quotient v/d," as you claim. It was to notice that the redshifts are proportional to the distances. IOW, v ~ d. The greater the distance, the greater the apparent recessional velocity. Sticking v over d does nothing to clarify the meaning of this remarkable correlation.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Well, your first sentence is either misleading, or just wrong, in a couple respects. AFAIK, the redshifts were interpreted as "recession velocities," not "escape velocities." This interpretation has since changed, but that's another topic.

    And "the idea to correlate the redshifts... with the distances" was not "to obtain a quotient v/d," as you claim. It was to notice that the redshifts are proportional to the distances. IOW, v ~ d. The greater the distance, the greater the apparent recessional velocity. Sticking v over d does nothing to clarify the meaning of this remarkable correlation.
    Indeed, that is why the units of the Hubble constant are so "strange": (km / sec) / Mpc, and there is a reason why this is not just reduced to 1/sec
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, and in 1929 Edwin Hubble, had the idea to correlate the redshifts of galaxies, interpreted as "escape velocities", v, with the distances, d, of the observed galaxies, in order to obtain a quotient v/d.
    No, these aren't "escape velocities". The redshift of galaxies is simply the speed at which they are moving away from us, it is not the escape velocity of anything. (what would these galaxies be escaping exactly?)

    Of course this quotient, according to the definition of velocity, cannot represent anything else but the time t required to cover the distance d with velocity v: v = d/t; v/d = 1/t; t is the said time.
    Sounds good here.

    Now, if the time is calculated which it took a moving body to cover a distance d, does this time teach us anything else beyond? Of course not.
    Of course it DOES, but you aren't giving any context to it. For instance, lets say there are 2 cars and the velocities are such that they are pointed directly towards each other. That teaches us that they are going to get into an accident, and calculating the speeds will teach us how bad or minor that accident will be. That is certainly information "beyond" just the number of it's velocity. Or if they are pointing directly away from each other it will tell us when they last interacted, again more information. Or what if the direction of the velocity was changing over time? Well now you can learn that the object is going in a circle, and perhaps it is orbiting something. Again, information beyond just it's velocity. There are many things that you can learn beyond just it's velocity once you put it in context, which is what Hubbles Law does.

    Provided the moving body is not a car but a galaxy: Does the time it took the galaxy to cover the distance d teach us anything about the "age of the universe"? Or about a "Big Bang" as starting point of the galaxies' motion? No, certainly not.
    Yes it easily does. Galaxies that are moving away from each other where in the same spot 13.7 billion years ago, thus the age of the universe. Though you are correct that it won't tell us the starting point, because there is NO starting point for the expansion of the universe. But that is a separate topic, so staying on this topic yes it will teach us many things, including the age of the universe.

    Rather the v/d relations of different galaxies result in different quantities. That is: The v/d relations of galaxies do not exhibit a regularity, much less the geometric "proportionality" asserted by Hubble in 1929. As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    Do you have a source for this? I was not aware that recent observations have disproved Hubbles Law in the manner you are claiming.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    .... As a consequence, there is no "Hubble's law".
    As already mentioned, Hubble's Law is a relationship between D (the proper distance to a galaxy) and redshift (the measured redshift of the light from the galaxy). Hubble's law and exists. Stating that it does not exist is similar to stating that a policeman using a radar gun to measure the speed of cars is not measuring the speeds of the cars.

    Hubble's law was measured and is measured today using redshift of the light a galaxy emits. That redshift is caused by the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is a shift of light caused by the velocity of the source. Thus the redshift gives the velocity of the galaxy. The best explanation for Hubble's law is an expanding universe. There were others explanations but they have been discarded because they cannot explain other observations, e.g. the CMB, the increase in neutral hydrogen as we look further away and earlier, time dilation of supernova light curves, etc.
    What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

    ETA: A tiny point, Ed Dellian, is that Hubble's law is actually v = H0D. The 0 subscript and capital D are important. H0 is Hubble's constant as measured here on Earth today. D is the proper distance to a galaxy that we measure now but changes with time.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-25 at 02:00 AM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Dellian View Post
    It was about 2 billions of years when Hubble calculated it for "nearer" galaxies 90 years ago; it is about 14 billions of years today, as it is now calculated for the d and v of the farthest observable galaxies, much farther than everything Hubble could see at his time
    The data Hubble originally used was for relatively few and close galaxies. He got one value for the Hubble constant. 90 years later we have data on millions of galaxies out to vast distances. The same analysis with more data gives a more accurate value.
    In addition we improved the measurement of distances to galaxies, D. Two major flaws with the original distance estimates were found in the 1950's. We found that there were 2 types of Cepheid variable stars so the distances had to be doubled. Using "brightest stars" in more remote galaxies to estimate distance misidentified bright gas or clusters as stars. That reduced the Hubble constant down to ~75. See Cosmic age problem.

    The Hubble constant is calculated from galaxies as the slope of the line for galaxies with measured redshift and distance from close ones to the furthest ones we have observed.

    See the Observed values of the Hubble constant table. This starts with estimates with no errors listed starting with 635 in 1927 from Georges Lemaitre.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Sep-25 at 02:30 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    ... we can observe galaxies that have a recessional speed greater than the speed of light. This makes the "car" analogy unrealistic.
    I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,144
    Quote Originally Posted by MikusF318 View Post
    I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science.
    MikusF318

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, so you know, Against The Mainstream (ATM) threads are not general discussion threads. The are for a single advocate (in this case Ed Dellian) to present a non-mainstream idea, for everyone else to ask them about it, and for that advocate to address those questions. If you wish to suggest ideas to Ed Dellian, please PM (Personal Message) him. If you wish to discuss a topic that comes up in an ATM thread, please start your own thread on that topic, rather than sidetrack this discussion.

    Thanks,
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    MikusF318

    First, welcome to CQ.

    Second, so you know, Against The Mainstream (ATM) threads are not general discussion threads. The are for a single advocate (in this case Ed Dellian) to present a non-mainstream idea, for everyone else to ask them about it, and for that advocate to address those questions. If you wish to suggest ideas to Ed Dellian, please PM (Personal Message) him. If you wish to discuss a topic that comes up in an ATM thread, please start your own thread on that topic, rather than sidetrack this discussion.

    Thanks,
    Understood. Won't happen again.

    Thank you for the welcome.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,393
    Quote Originally Posted by MikusF318 View Post
    I think those galaxies with a speed greater than the speed of light are actually beyond the "observable universe" and, therefore, we can't actually see them because their light will never reach us - at least according to mainstream science.
    Answered here:
    http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthre...speed-of-light

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •