/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13895454

120KiB, 800x450, ac5e38283f9579dbc97798aafece77a2.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 05:48:35 2021 No.13895454 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13895493 >>13895512 >>13896251

Pardon me if I sound stupid, but something doesn't make sense.

It's common knowledge that we believe our universe is 13.8 billion years old, correct? Yet we're finding galaxies 29 billion light years away (https://gizmodo.com/surprising-discovery-of-two-ancient-galaxies-exposes-ou-1848122839/). Wouldn't this imply that by finding galaxies this far away, that our universe is 29 billion years old, at the minimum, given the fact that it would take that long for the light to reach us?

Am I missing something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 05:50:56 No.13895461 Report

Quoted By: >>13895468

Space itself has been expanding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 05:53:11 No.13895468 Report

Quoted By: >>13895507

>>13895461
And? Does the expansion of space make light move faster or something?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Astronomer.jpg, 97KiB, 800x600

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:07:13 No.13895493 Report

Quoted By: >>13896589

>>13895454
astronomy is all fake, torured logic, nondisprovable dogma passed off as theory, optional obedience to the laws of physics, etc.
its just a bunch of cringey nerds doing what used to be considered a recreational hobby as a profession. they never come up with any meaningful or even interesting discoveries because no intelligent person would bother wasting time on a worthless cringefest like professional astronomy

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Ant_on_a_rubber_rope_animation.gif, 425KiB, 1200x131

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:12:08 No.13895507 Report

Quoted By: >>13895537

>>13895468

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO yugas.jpg, 141KiB, 723x541

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:15:35 No.13895512 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895454

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:27:08 No.13895537 Report

Quoted By: >>13895591 >>13895602 >>13895604 >>13895607 >>13895613

>>13895507
While this makes sense in a way, wouldn't those galaxies be moving away from us at a speed (from our perspective) faster than light? Wouldn't we no longer be able to see them after a certain point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:48:12 No.13895591 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895537
It is an elaborate cope to hope our current models generalize to everything.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO thumbs.jpg, 390KiB, 2304x3456

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:52:46 No.13895602 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895537
>Wouldn't we no longer be able to see them after a certain point?
Yes, you're right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:53:42 No.13895604 Report

Quoted By: >>13895611

>>13895537
Yes. Only 3% of the galaxies in the observable universe arev"moving away from us at a speed (from our perspective)" at less than the speed of light.
With 97%, the speed > c.
$<br />\dfrac{\frac{4}{3} \pi 14^{3} }{\frac{4}{3} \pi 46.5^{3} }\approx 0.0273<br />$
https://youtu.be/q67vH0SKahU?t=3m30s

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:54:03 No.13895607 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895537
makes no difference what theories people make up about dim distant dots in the sky. nobody will ever be able to confirm or deny the veracity of whatever claims are being made about the dots. from a human perspective, those dots are the least important things in the universe, they are least likely to affect our lives.
people who concentrate their lives focusing on the least important stuff in the universe are doing it wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:55:02 No.13895611 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895604
Now that’s spooky action at a distance!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 06:55:59 No.13895613 Report

Quoted By: >>13896198

>>13895537
Yes. Only 3% of the galaxies in the observable universe are "moving away from us at a speed (from our perspective)" at less than the speed of light.
With 97%, the speed > c.
$<br />\dfrac{\frac{4}{3} \pi 14^{3} }{\frac{4}{3} \pi 46.5^{3} }\approx 0.0273<br />$
https://youtu.be/q67vH0SKahU?t=3m30s

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 10:52:13 No.13896198 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895613
Thanks for this. I really think we need to remodel our current understanding of the universe significantly. I worry we may be working under many false pretenses, and that a significant amount of our understanding may be incorrect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 11:23:03 No.13896251 Report

Quoted By: >>13896337

>>13895454
Talking about the size of the universe makes no sense if you cant know its shape. If space was just flat 3 (or is it 4 or more than 4) dimensional space it would be infinite by definition.
If it has some multiple dimensions some may be finite of different sizes and curved and others infinite, or perhaps all are finite.
So why would you expect it to just have one size? The earth has a size, its diameter, because its a sphere, do you say the universe is also a sphere?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 12:01:38 No.13896337 Report

Quoted By: >>13896514

>>13896251
Given the idea that the big bang started from a central point (theoretically) and that it continues to expand (theoretically) at a continuous rate (theoretically), then wouldn't it make sense that it (theoretically) would be a sphere? What other shape would continuous and constant expansion lead to?

I think it's fair to say that the fabric of spacetime is likely very rigid in nature, yet flexible. Probably like a bungee cord, It'll expand until it can't, and then likely snap back to a singular point. Given that theoretical nature of spacetime, I think it's fair to say that a sphere is the most likely shape lf the universe. Donut believers be damned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 13:10:21 No.13896514 Report

Quoted By:

>>13896337
Maybe its a hollow sphere and started as a tiny hollow sphere and not as a point.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO b48d5927d91b57b400bf77f5d97ad3ff (...).jpg, 162KiB, 736x1149

Anonymous Sat 27 Nov 2021 13:37:02 No.13896589 Report

Quoted By:

>>13895493
What you describe is not astronomy, but astrophysics, which is btfo'ed by actual astronomy discovering actual objects further than those retarded theories propose as the firmament.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches