Genady

I've received this "riddle" from a friend this morning: Doing my best to translate it to English here, while cutting off irrelevant details. Bob got an electronic clock in shape of an apple. It shows time with a precision of a hundredth of a second. As he was moving down on an escalator, Bob threw the clock up and noticed that at the top of its trajectory the clock showed 11:32:45:81. His teacher Mary was moving up on the escalator at the same time, and she noticed that the clock showed 11:32:45:74 at the top of its trajectory. Find the speed of the escalators, given that they move with the same speed, at the angle of 300 to horizon. Ignore the air friction. Take g = 10 m/s2.

I've already answered such question here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132162-is-the-universe-at-least-136-billion-years-old-is-the-universe-not-expanding-at-all-did-the-universe-begin-its-expansion-when-hubble-measured-its-redshift-for-the-first-time-or-was-light-twice-as-fast-135-billion-years-ago-than-it-is-today/?do=findComment&comment=1246785 Here it is again:

It's the distance that the light covered since it was emitted until it has reached us. The light-travel distance. If the light had an odometer attached, that would be what its odometer shows.

The galaxy is now at about 34 billion light years from us. Its redshift z=11. Thus, when the light was emitted, it was at the distance 34/12=2.8 billion light years away.

It was not in that position 13.5 billion years ago. The surface of last scattering was in that position 13.8 billion years ago. The surface of last scattering has z=1100. The galaxy has z=11.

It is homogenous and isotropic on the scale of >100 Mpc (>300 million light years). And on cosmological distance concepts, esp. the proper distance and the light-travel distance.

This clearly confirms that YOUR concept is mistaken, and you keep piling wrong conclusions on top of each other. The cosmological concept, OTOH, is very clear and consistent, but it needs careful study and math to be applied correctly.

No, your calculations are incorrect. We do. See e.g. List of the most distant astronomical objects - Wikipedia: You see, 33.6 billion light-years!

We see the source of the cosmic microwave background. This source is now 46 billion light years away.

Your numbers are off. The radius of the visible universe is about 46 billion light years, not 13.5 billion light years. See the very first comment above. The galaxy did not emit light when the universe was only 40 million light years large. The cosmic microwave background light was emitted then. As I've explained in my previous post, this tiny dot looks not "much", but 12.6 times bigger. It was not "much", but 12.6 times closer.

The farthest galaxy observed today has a redshift of 11.6. This means that when the light was emitted it was 12.6 times closer to us than it is now. This means that the image of the galaxy that we see is 12.6 times larger than it should be for its current distance. A tiny dot enlarged 12.6 times is still a tiny dot.

For each galaxy we measure its redshift, z. The light we see now left the galaxy, which is at the distance d from us now, when it was at the distance d/(z+1) from us.

No. If the light had an odometer attached to it, the odometer would show that it has covered the total distance of 13.5 billion light years.

Million. As it was moving toward us with the speed of light, the distance in front of it that it still had to cover, kept growing.

The light of the cosmic microwave background was emitted from about 40 mln ly away.

I can imagine it to be so if there is little text and the video contains mostly visual and auditory images. These videos don't need to be converted. Let's limit my request to videos that try to convey a textual information / message.

Not so. Observable universe - Wikipedia:

To convert a YouTube video to a well-organized written article.

Go to Google Search or Bing. Copy and paste your question. Click Enter.

When I google your question verbatim, I get in the first two results the following: 1. Boosted fission weapon - Wikipedia 2. 4.3 Fission-Fusion Hybrid Weapons (nuclearweaponarchive.org) Do they answer your question?

This is another factor to add to the list. I've never heard of “ship track” clouds. First, we've added them, now we remove them: ‘We’re changing the clouds.’ An unforeseen test of geoengineering is fueling record ocean warmth | Science | AAAS

But we could wipe ourselves with Brezhnev portrait any time.

They were the two most circulated and subscribed to, mainly because people were often forced to subscribe to them. They were not most read though. But they were most used as substitution for non-exist toilet paper.

There were more than two. About half dozen central ones, and many regional, professional, special interest etc. A representative, albeit partial list can be found here: Printed media in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia