On Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 5:39:31 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 2:05 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:

 > *Distances to galaxies is measured using standard candles. So the 
attenuation in brightness compared to intrinsic brightness is a true 
measure of distance even though the universe is expanding. So there doesn't 
seem to be any problem with Hubble's values for distances.*


*Distance between what, and when? If Hubble gives a figure of 10 billion 
light years that is the distance the light from a distant galaxy needed 
to travel through space to reach us, it tells us what the galaxy look like 
10 billion years ago, but because space had been expanding while light had 
been making its journey it is NOT the distance the Earth is from 
that galaxy now, and is NOT the distance between the two when the light was 
first emitted.*


*But when we use standard candles to measure distance from Earth to some 
galaxy, don't we get the ACTUAL distance NOW, since light attenuates in 
intensity due to expansion, just as its wavelength increases (and its 
energy decreases)? AG *


*> If gravity is slowing the rate of expansion, it must have been higher in 
the past than now. On the other hand, Hubble's law seems to claim that when 
galaxies are close to each other, the rate of expansion is slow. How do you 
resolve this contradiction,*


*You're confusing the amount of expansion and the change in the amount of 
expansion. *


*I don't think so. See below. One thing that confused me was your claim a 
few days ago that the expansion rate was slow in the very early universe. I 
think you were comparing its rate at that time with the rate during 
Inflation. AG*
 

*Except for the first 10^-32 seconds, until about 5 billion years ago the 
universe was expanding faster than it is now but the RATE of expansion was 
negative, things were decelerating. Things changed 5 billion years ago, the 
RATE of acceleration became positive and the universe started to 
accelerate. The universe experienced a cosmic jerk. *


*Brent explained my confusion. Hubble's law compares galaxies near and far 
from us, and states that those far away, are receding the fastest. That 
FACT does NOT imply that galaxies in the very early universe were receding 
from each other at a low rate just because they were relatively close to 
each other at that time. AG *


*> If the universe is infinite, as seems likely, most of it was always 
unobservable, since the observable part is necessarily finite.*

*Yes but in the past we could see more of the universe than we can now, and 
today there are parts of the universe that we can see but we can never 
affect, if we sent a radio message to it moving at the speed of light it 
would not arrive there in any finite number of years. *


*While I agree with your statement, you're responding to Brent's comment 
which I disagree with it. IMO, the unobservable region came into existence 
during Inflation, when the universe expanded at a rate hugely greater than 
light speed. So, it seems plausible that the entire universe, that which 
arose from a substratum which might be infinite, is finite in spatial 
extent. AG* 

 * John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
3//
9ii


 

*this would make sense IF Dark Energy is an intrinsic part of space because 
as space expands matter, which wants to retard the expansion gets diluted 
but space, which wants to increase the expansion, does not. *

*However that might not be true, Dark Energy might not be caused by space 
itself, maybe it's produced by some sort of field that can change with 
time. Very recently there have been indications that the rate of change of 
the acceleration of the universe (believe it or not called a cosmic jerk) 
might be decreasing, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to claim a 
discovery.   *

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fea9c05-9a3e-40c0-a853-8be7183254c9n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to