SkipCaptcha
185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 228:
Line 228: + − +
Talk:Starlight problem (view source)
Revision as of 04:15, January 31, 2012
, 04:15, January 31, 2012no edit summary
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::That makes sense and I believe it. Let's return to unbound objects. The space expansion means distance expansion between unbound objects. Is there space expansion and/or changing distances between unbound and bound objects? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:57, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Well yes. Distance is just a word for the size of dimensions in space. Like I said earlier, if you're a megaparsec away from something and not gravitationally bound to it the distance is increasing at about 74 km/s. However between bound objects there is no expansion. Distances might change, but only because of normal motion. Even Newtonian mechanics gives a good approximation of that. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 23:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::: A group of bound objects, like a galaxy, will experience expansion relative to other galaxies to which it is not gravitationally bound. That is why we see far away galaxies expanding away from us, but not the galaxies in our Local Group. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 23:15, 30 January 2012 (EST)
===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves===
===Rachel & Scott discuss among themselves and wait for Andy to cite his sources===
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::Rachel, Aschalfly says that he saw "numerous references" to people talking about observable stars 39 billion light years away. I have an open mind, and want to be able to have him share his knowledge with me. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 21:02, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::There most certainly are stars 39 billion light years away, or close to it. That's the cosmological principle in action. But, as Aschlafly pointed out, they're not going to be observable because light from those stars has not had time to get to us, and if we attempted to look back that far, we will eventually hit the "wall," so to speak, as a result of the opacity of the early universe. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 21:10, 30 January 2012 (EST)