Is the universe actually speeding up?

[tar]

ajb,

 

Well, thank you for that. I sort of understand that gives a workable "now" reference point. Our area of the universe is a certain age, and everything we see is younger, and if we make the necessary allowances for distance we can imagine that that other area we are seeing is "now" still there, in a condition similar agewise to the situation locally.

 

But the "here" part is still a bit illusive. We can take "here" to be at our telescope, or our city, or our continent, or our planet, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or our local cluster, or our string of galaxies, or indeed our observable universe, and even the whole thing can be thought of as "our" universe here and now.

 

But we can't see it all at once.

 

What conventions do we use to tell the difference between that which we see, and that which we imagine?

 

 

If the question is whether the universe is speeding up or slowing down and we are going by historical data, are we not determining what the universe was doing "then" as we see it? And how do we know what size structures are carried by the expansion, intact, and what size stuctures are separated by it?

 

Regards, TAR2

Regards, TAR2

[rigney]

ajb,

 

Well, thank you for that. I sort of understand that gives a workable "now" reference point. Our area of the universe is a certain age, and everything we see is younger, and if we make the necessary allowances for distance we can imagine that that other area we are seeing is "now" still there, in a condition similar agewise to the situation locally.

 

But the "here" part is still a bit illusive. We can take "here" to be at our telescope, or our city, or our continent, or our planet, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or our local cluster, or our string of galaxies, or indeed our observable universe, and even the whole thing can be thought of as "our" universe here and now.

 

But we can't see it all at once.

 

What conventions do we use to tell the difference between that which we see, and that which we imagine?

 

 

If the question is whether the universe is speeding up or slowing down and we are going by historical data, are we not determining what the universe was doing "then" as we see it? And how do we know what size structures are carried by the expansion, intact, and what size stuctures are separated by it?

 

Regards, TAR2

Regards, TAR2

 

Had to give each of you guys an "A+" on those last two inputs. My reason? I know absolutely nothing of what either of you were talking about. All of it was well over my head.

 

Tar, you made the statement, Quote: I sort of understand that gives a workable "now" reference point. Our area of the universe is a certain age, and everything we see is younger, and if we make the necessary allowances for distance we can imagine that that other area we are seeing is "now" still there, in a condition similar agewise to the situation locally.Unquote

 

My understanding is that the entire universe was born at the same instant, so everything in it must be of the same age. Now, I know this post may have moved off topic a bit, but I don't mind. It just hones my curiosity. When we look at galaxies, even our own; we see them as they must have appeared those millions or billions of light years ago. Like you, I believe that if those galaxies still exist today as ours does, any intelligence in them will be going through the same rigors as we are. As for exceeding light speed, I believe the universe per se, is either speeding up or slowing down, but maintaining a speed set for it those billions of years ago.

[tar]

Rigney,

 

We will have to let ajb tell us what is what. I am not so far over your head, compared to ajb to not consider myself in your boat.

 

However I will make a slight correction. I don't think you should say "billions of light years ago". A light year is a distance, not a time. I think you can safely say however that when we see something at a distance of 1 light year, we are seeing something that released the photons we are seeing, one year ago, in terms of the "now" shared by the entire universe, based on each part of it being as "old" as our "now" here on Earth.

 

So something a billion light years away, is seen as it was when it was 12.2 billion years old.

 

Interesting to me, is that by this reckoning I could probably safely say, that to me, I am the oldest thing in the universe. Every part of the universe is just about to do what it has not yet done, and put one more tick on the 13.2?????????????????????? billion year old clock. But to me, I put the tick on first, and I see the rest put that particular tick on, later.

 

However, I still maintain that there is no platform, other than human imagination, where the whole universe can be seen "at once", all in the "now" state.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S.

 

And to that intelligent being 1 billion light years away, you and I won't even be born, for another billion years. And she probably sees the universe much as we do, with the stuff farther away, being that much younger than her area. And SHE is the oldest thing in the universe, as far as she is concerned.

 

P.P.S.

And If we were to send her a message, and she lived to be 100, she would never get it. It would arrive at her location a billion years after her death.

Edited June 22, 2011 by tar

[rigney]

Rigney,

 

We will have to let ajb tell us what is what. I am not so far over your head, compared to ajb to not consider myself in your boat.

 

However I will make a slight correction. I don't think you should say "billions of light years ago". A light year is a distance, not a time. I think you can safely say however that when we see something at a distance of 1 light year, we are seeing something that released the photons we are seeing, one year ago, in terms of the "now" shared by the entire universe, based on each part of it being as "old" as our "now" here on Earth.

 

So something a billion light years away, is seen as it was when it was 12.2 billion years old.

 

Interesting to me, is that by this reckoning I could probably safely say, that to me, I am the oldest thing in the universe. Every part of the universe is just about to do what it has not yet done, and put one more tick on the 13.2?????????????????????? billion year old clock. But to me, I put the tick on first, and I see the rest put that particular tick on, later.

 

However, I still maintain that there is no platform, other than human imagination, where the whole universe can be seen "at once", all in the "now" state.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S.

 

And to that intelligent being 1 billion light years away, you and I won't even be born, for another billion years. And she probably sees the universe much as we do, with the stuff farther away, being that much younger than her area. And SHE is the oldest thing in the universe, as far as she is concerned.

 

P.P.S.

And If we were to send her a message, and she lived to be 100, she would never get it. It would arrive at her location a billion years after her death.

 

You are right about one thing for sure, I need people like abj around to keep me in step. I've been on the forum little over a year and am about as scientifically inclined as a dustmop. So, I do stand corrected in my post #27. I said: As for exceeding light speed, I believe the universe per se, is either speeding up or slowing down, but maintaining a constant, set for it those billions of years ago. I meant to say, neither.

 

And the lady in a galaxy 13 billion light years from us? I suppose rational conjecture is the only means of analyzing such a paradox? As I see it, "now" is "now" throughout the universe. Not yesterday or tomorrow, but this very instant. While you, me and the lady may live in three different zones of the universe, this moment belongs equally to us all. Now, if some catastrophic event should wipe out you and I, or her, it would take thirteen billion years at the speed of light before news of the event would reach either time zone.

Just want to add this link, then it's your turn. P.S., I spend lots of time editing my mistakes.

 

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

Edited June 22, 2011 by rigney

[zapatos]

I think you can safely say however that when we see something at a distance of 1 light year, we are seeing something that released the photons we are seeing, one year ago, in terms of the "now" shared by the entire universe, based on each part of it being as "old" as our "now" here on Earth.

The distance of an object from earth does not necessarily coincide with the amount of time light from that object took to reach earth.

 

Due to the expansion of the universe, the location of an object whose light took 1 billion years to reach us, was nearer than 1 billion light years away when the light left it, and is greater than 1 billion light years away when we receive the light.

[rigney]

The distance of an object from earth does not necessarily coincide with the amount of time light from that object took to reach earth.

 

Due to the expansion of the universe, the location of an object whose light took 1 billion years to reach us, was nearer than 1 billion light years away when the light left it, and is greater than 1 billion light years away when we receive the light.

 

Very logical. And if the universe is proportionally expanding as said, instead of radially dispersing as an explosion, you might think by now a physicist using calculus would have figured out an accurate velocity for this expansion by using the photon lengthening in red shift? Just a thought.

 

Here is just one of many papers discussing the theory.

http://www.mglewis.info/physics.htm#physics

Edited June 23, 2011 by rigney

[tar]

Rigney,

 

Nice link, the one with the 14x zoom and all. It is actually that "picture" of the entire visible universe, seen all at once, in it's "now" state, that led me to the realization that such a "picture" is impossible, except in our imaginations and model creations. Its the "picture" we see when we look up at the sky at night that depicts how the universe "really" is. For instance, if you "really" where to zoom in on a distant point in the universe, it would start out younger, and age before your eyes, as you closed in on it, and the visible light it was putting out would "look" bluer the faster you were approaching it, and the infrared would look visible, and the ultraviolet would appear to be x-rays and so on. And provided your "zoom" machine could muster the energy to up to close the speed of light, you would probably be "seeing" the approaching target, no matter what electromagnetic frequencies it was putting out, in gamma and cosmic rays. And STILL, even at that speed of zoom, it would take you over a year to zoom into the nearest star. (and you have not even left the neighborhood.) The speed of light speed limit, precludes any observer from ever "seeing" the whole universe, in a different manner, than the manner we actually do see it in.

But fortunately we do have imaginations and artists and computer aided graphics to build an "accurate" model we can envision. Just as long as you remember the model is not really accurate, is not really correct, and is not actually taking into consideration how the universe would "really" look if you where to move around in it, even at the most tremendous of possible speeds.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

zapatos,

 

I am sure you are right about distances between objects increasing over a billion years, due to expansion of space.

 

However, you will have to give me the fact that it is hard to imagine what we are using as a "standard" ruler that would have the same characteristics on both ends of a measurement that it takes a billion years to make. And its hard to know who it is that is holding the ruler. And it is hard to know what we are talking about in terms of the "position" of the object. Is it the position we see it in, that is actual? Or are we to consider the position we imagine it in "now" to be its actual position?

 

Perhaps this is a philosophical question.

The position we imagine the object to be in "now", is a metaphysical concern.

The position we see it in is a physical reality, because the photons are hitting our instruments now.

 

Regards, TAR2