SkipCaptcha
112
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 219:
Line 219: +
Talk:Starlight problem (view source)
Revision as of 03:41, January 31, 2012
, 03:41, January 31, 2012→39 billion light years away?
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc<sup>2</sup>. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::No, it doesn't. I used atomic numbers (not atomic weights - they're different) as an example of how some things are constant, because you said that everything is constantly changing. The fact is that many things are NOT constantly changing, and one of them is the speed of light. We know that it ''isn't'' changing because various measurements have been done, and we know that it ''can't'' change because of conservation of energy and E=mc<sup>2</sup>. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:31, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Good. We're clarifying much here. When it is postulated, "the universe is expanding", that ''only'' refers to space, not matter, am I reading that correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Depends what you mean. Existing matter is not expanding. New matter is not appearing from nowhere. However matter is just a kind of energy, and sometimes other forms of energy can convert into matter. So the amount of matter does fluctuate a bit, but the overall energy remains constant. Weirdly, thanks to gravity being negative energy, it remains constant at a value of zero. Who said it had to make sense? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 22:41, 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)
::::::::::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)