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 13.5 billion years ago than it is today?

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

This would finally confirm that the concept of a very odd

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.

[tmdarkmatter]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Another thing, how could the universe be unnatural, that's an oxymoron.

Maybe "unnatural" is the wrong term. "Highly concentrated in the center and therefore not evenly distributed at all" would be better. Let me think about all the things mentioned here. I will come up with a better experiment later today so I can show you my point of view regarding an expanding universe.

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

The cosmological concept, OTOH, is very clear and consistent, but it needs careful study and math to be applied correctly.

So what does the universe currently look like according to this concept?

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

"Highly concentrated in the center and therefore not evenly distributed at all" would be better.

Except that it's not true and no one thinks that.

 

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I will come up with a better experiment later today so I can show you my point of view regarding an expanding universe.

Your point of view does not make sense.  Your time would be much better spent reading a few articles about the expansion of the universe with an open mind...

[TheVat]

Seems to be an OP confusion on types of cosmological horizons - there are four.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon

 

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So what does the universe currently look like according to this concept?

It is homogenous and isotropic on the scale of >100 Mpc (>300 million light years).

 

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

Seems to be an OP confusion on types of cosmological horizons - there are four.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon

 

And on cosmological distance concepts, esp. the proper distance and the light-travel distance.

[tmdarkmatter]

30 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Your point of view does not make sense. 

Imagine we stand on a field and a 1x1x1 meter box about 100 meters away is a galaxy we are observing.

Now the galaxy expands moving the box 1 meter away to a distance of 101 meters, but at the same time a sheet of carton of exactly 1x1 meter is positioned about 1,1 meter away from the box, at a distance of 99,9 meters. This would be the light coming from the box (galaxy). Now imagine we make our universe expand another meter. The box is moved another meter to a distance of 102 meters and in front of the box you have two cartons of the size of 1 x 1 meter each, one at a distance of 99,8 meters and one at a distance of 100,9 meters. You can continue doing this until you have the box at a distance of 1100 meters, with 1100 different sheets of carton positioned in between you and the box and the first sheet of carton finally reaching you at distance 0. What would this carton look like? Would it be a tiny spot in the distance? I think it is confusing for us that we are only seeing light coming from galaxies, we do not see the galaxies themselves.

Of course you would say that these sheets of cartons should get smaller when seeing them from far away, when the galaxy moves away. Even the carton sheets approaching us should get smaller while travelling, but the area of the first sheet should always have the same proportion of the entire area we can see. The sheets would only get smaller once the galaxy moves away.

Maybe the best way to imagine the shrinking of the cartons while travelling into our direction is to use some ropes at each corner of the box that would be uniting when the carton reaches us. But we would see thess ropes just as four dots from our perspective.

The further away the galaxy is, the closer these 4 ropes would be and therefore we would see the galaxy smaller once these cartons reach us.

But when we observe a galaxy very far away, we are still watching the first cartons.

Edited August 8, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Now the galaxy expands moving the box 1 meter away to a distance of 101 meters, but at the same time a sheet of carton of exactly 1x1 meter is positioned about 1,1 meter away from the box, at a distance of 99,9 meters. This would be the light coming from the box (galaxy). Now imagine we make our universe expand another meter. The box is moved another meter to a distance of 102 meters and in front of the box you have two cartons of the size of 1 x 1 meter each, one at a distance of 99,8 meters and one at a distance of 100,9 meters. You can continue doing this until you have the box at a distance of 1100 meters, with 1100 different sheets of carton positioned in between you and the box and the first sheet of carton finally reaching you at distance 0. What would this carton look like? Would it be a tiny spot in the distance?

You are looking at this all wrong, this thought experiment makes no sense.

According to your 'logic' as you moved away from a light source it would not get dimmer, is that what we observe?

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think it is confusing for us that we are only seeing light coming from galaxies, we do not see the galaxies themselves.

You can say the same silly thing about your car, you are seeing the light from your car not the car itself.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Bufofrog

[tmdarkmatter]

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You can say the same silly thing about your car, you are seeing the light from your car not the car itself.

That´s correct, I never saw my car. I only saw light coming from it.

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You are looking at this all wrong, this thought experiment makes no sense.

According to your 'logic' as you moved away from a light source it would not get dimmer, is that what we observe?

Ok, what I want to say is that once the light from a galaxy that is further away reaches the observer, the light obviously becomes smaller and dimmer. But if we are currently watching the first sheets of light coming from these distant galaxies, we should still observe a much bigger galaxy and the image should correspond to a galaxy just 30-40 million light years away, if the galaxy was at that position 13.5 billion years ago and the light needed these 13.5 billion years to reach us.

Edited August 8, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

a galaxy just 30-40 million light years away, if the galaxy was at that position 13.5 billion years ago

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.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Ok, the same calculations can be made with different horizons, but the problem remains the same. Light is still beeing carried away by expansion.

So you suppose that the light was emitted closer to us and then the universe expanded. My questions in this case are: At what distance was the light emitted? What was the position of this light during all this time (light just floating and not moving?)? Why would we see tiny galaxies (dots) with their size beeing according to the estimated distance, why would we not see big galaxies corresponding the images to galaxies closer to us?

Yes, I understand what you mean, but red shifted or not, light coming from this distance and having to cross a universe in expansion would need more time to travel this distance, even if travelling at the speed of light and beeing this speed a constant. If light is travelling through a space and I (playing god) expand this space while the light is inside of this space, I should be able to delay that light. It is very important to mention that I am not changing the speed of light, I am only modifying the distance light has to travel. Wouldn´t it be strange to say that when light is red shifted it has the right to travel faster than the speed of light? That would be a contradiction.

OK, so you seem to be seeing this the same way as in @Genady's explanation then, viz. travels at c, but through a space that is itself expanding, so the distance stretches during its travel.  

[tmdarkmatter]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

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.

Bufofrog said this previously, so I am confused:

Don't forget that the light from a galaxy that is 13 billion years old was a emitted a lot closer to us than 13 light years!

So please tell me what was the distance of this galaxy 13.5 billion years ago.

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

but through a space that is itself expanding, so the distance stretches during its travel.  

but the distance would never stretch faster than the speed of light because we would never see this light.

The light coming from these furthest galaxies would never be farther away than the initial distance of these galaxies. The galaxies would keep moving away, but the light needs to move into our direction.

Edited August 8, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[zapatos]

As an observer to this conversation I think I see @tmdarkmatter's difficulty.

Your approach to learning these concepts is to develop a model in your head then to ask what is wrong with it. You'd be better served by reading about these concepts then asking for others to explain those parts you don't understand or would like further clarification on. Your false model is simply causing you roadblocks as you keep trying to tie things back to that.

Imagine you wanted to be an auto mechanic. When you go to your first class and the instructor tells you how something works, if it doesn't fit with your (false) preconceived notion of how the engine functions their description won't make any sense to you. You should jettison your model, start over, and learn the model that already exists.

[Genady]

26 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

what was the distance of this galaxy 13.5 billion years ago

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.

[tmdarkmatter]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

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 is now at 34 billion and back then was at 2.8 billion? So what are the 13.5 billion we are talking about???

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

You should jettison your model, start over, and learn the model that already exists.

If your model is perfect, I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions, instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model. I would prefer to have answers.

It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So what are the 13.5 billion we are talking about?

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.

[tmdarkmatter]

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense. And why we are seeing tiny dots instead of clusters like the neighboring clusters of our milky way.

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

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.

But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

Edited August 8, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense. And why we are seeing tiny dots instead of clusters like the neighboring clusters of our milky way.

But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by exchemist

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But how is it possible that this light travels for 13.5 billion years if the galaxy was only 2.8 billion light years away?

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:

Quote

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. 

[tmdarkmatter]

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably. 

So you admit that this light was travelling at only about 20% of the speed of light or that the "average effective speed of light" was just 0,20740741 C.

Using the word "presumably" indicates me that your model does not seem to be perfect yet or that you are not completely convinced yet.

 

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If your model is perfect...

It's not perfect and it's not mine..

9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions...

Another of your misunderstandings.

 

10 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

...instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model. 

Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model.

11 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.

Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion.

[tmdarkmatter]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If your model is perfect...

It's not perfect and it's not mine..

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think it should be easy for you to answer my questions...

Another of your misunderstandings.

 

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

...instead of cuestioning my understanding of this model. 

Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model.

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It is much easier to say that somebody simply does not understand.

Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion.

Thank you, these are the things I want to read.

I prefer to not understand a model instead of eagerly defending a model that is incorrect. But I still do not know what model would be correct. I am just asking questions.

Anyway, you already recognized that there should be an "effective speed of light" that is different than the "actual speed of light". Now the only thing I need to do is to convince you that this "effective speed" does not depend on time, but it depends on the distance a galaxy is away from us. The further away, the lower the "effective speed" and the closer to us, the more would this "effective speed" be equivalent to the "actual speed of light" until reaching equality at distance zero.

Another fact I should convince you of is that this light is never further away from earth than these 2.8 billion light years. So this light never travels the distance of 13.5-2.8 = 10.7 billion light years, while the galaxy in fact does move away on this path (or a similar path).

Edited August 8, 2023 by tmdarkmatter

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So you admit that this light was travelling at only about 20% of the speed of light or that the "average effective speed of light" was just 0,20740741 C.

Using the word "presumably" indicates me that your model does not seem to be perfect yet or that you are not completely convinced yet.

 

No of course not. "Presumably" is a term I use to indicate something is what I think, while acknowledging I am far from expert on cosmology, so I advance my remarks tentatively. It's not my model or my speciality.

You have to be careful, I think, with "the average effective speed of light." I thought you already understood the light travels towards Earth at c throughout, but the distance over which that light has to travel is increasing as it goes, as  @Genady had already said.

I'm wondering if it may be useful in this discussion to distinguish between comoving distance and proper distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances I have the feeling this may be where the confusion is occurring. But as I say I am not a cosmologist. There are others here better qualified to steer you through what the theory actually says.

  

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If this model works, I think you should be able to tell me where this galaxy was 13.5 billion years ago, where the light was emitted, where the galaxy is now and how fast this light travelled what distance to reach us to see if it makes sense.

The answers to those questions are literally in the previous couple of posts, except that the speed of light is c, which no one apparently thought you needed to be told.  The fact that you asked some questions received the answers and the immediately claimed no one answered the questions certainly seems like you are arguing in bad faith.  That attitude is usually the hallmark of a troll.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Anyway, you already recognized that there should be an "effective speed of light" that is different than the "actual speed of light".

No one agrees with you that the speed of light was not c.  The fact that you cannot even understand that, really makes me think this thread has no chance of helping your confusion.

[tmdarkmatter]

I can see that with the expansion, we are just creating new space out of nowhere and we are parking our extra light from these old galaxies there, so it needs more time to reach us. So, actually we suppose that this universe is going to be converted into a lightverse (space only filled with light) without any visible galaxies and that all these galaxies are going to disperse completely unevenly (soccer field with pinhead in the center) until they all desintegrate. During the "big bang", matter was created out of nowhere, so why can we not create "space" out of nowhere too? What if we are wrong with all the redshift theory? Isn´t it much more logical that the universe is not expanding at all, instead of the need to create space and matter out of nowhere? What if gravity is responsible for red shifting instead and bing bang never happened? Did you ever question all these ideas? Isn´t it highly suspicious that we are existing exactly in a perfect time to see a sky full of galaxies? Why do we not exist a couple of billions of years later when most of these galaxies are gone, or a couple of billions of years earlier, when the density of the galaxies would be extremely high so we could not sleep at night. I am wondering what kind of sky the first cyanobacteria on earth had above them. Was it a sky full of galaxies or was it the same then today? Also, the entire universe should be slowly cooling down due to this expansion, so the galaxies we see far away should actually be much hotter than ours.

Anway, of course this is what we have so far. I am just trying to challenge you. There is no need to define me as a troll. I can also accept everything that is beeing offered to me since I was born and never question anything. I can repeat everything like a parrot too. But if we all think alike, no one is actually thinking.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

with the expansion, we are just creating new space out of nowhere

Space is not an entity. There is no "new space" or "old space."