Le jeu. 26 sept. 2024, 16:04, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 5:28:44 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 1:08 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> I think our bubble, both parts, are finite, but the substratum from > whence it originated, is likely infinite, uncreated, and eternal. AG* > > > *If you believe an infinite number of years is possible why do you believe > an infinite number of light years is inconceivable? Why is space so > different from time in this regard? * > > > *Did I claim they are different? BTW, "eternal" doesn't necessarily imply > a flow of time. In any event, for the nth time, the problem with an > infinite number of light years at the birth of our bubble, is that it would > have to be achieved instantaneously. * > He didn't say that, he's saying if time is infinite in the future so does the universe, it's an infinity potential. *I don't think this is physically possible. And, for the nth time, if our > bubble is finite, it can't be flat (since it's not torus shaped). AG * > > > *>As I said before, even if inflation never happened there would still be > galaxies expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and it's an > observational fact that galaxies are not just moving at high speed away > from us, they are ACCELERATING away.* > > > *> I am still waiting for an explanation of this claim. * > > > *The expansion of space is not a claim, and it is not a theory, it is an > observational fact. The Big Bang is a theory that explains that fact which, > I believe, is almost certainly correct. The acceleration of the universe is > also an observational fact that needs a good theory to explain it, but > currently there is not one. * > > > *The "claim" (yours) is that expansion will occur in the absence of > Inflation! Did I ever deny the existence of expansion? Well, only in your > fertile imagination. AG* > Expansion doesn't need inflation, inflation is later than expansion theory, and not linked to the inflation field. > > *> Also, if galaxies within our view are receding slower than c, and that > was occurring for 13.8 BY, why does the observable universe have a radius > in excess of 2*13.8 BLY? **AG* > > > *Because as I said more than once before, it took light from the most > distant galaxies in the observable universe 13.8 billion years to reach us > BUT during those 13 8 billion years those galaxys have not remain > stationary, instead they have been moving away from us. And during the > last 6.5 billion years that expansion has been accelerating. * > > > *Yes, but presumably not at a velocity > c.* > The galaxies you can see now, lights was emitted 13.8 billion years ago, at that time they weren't receeding faster than c, but now those same galaxies are receeding faster than c due to expansion alone, that's why they are at 46 billion light years now. So soon "some billions more years" they'll go out of view *so the age and size of the visible universe seem incompatible. Did you actually READ what I wrote before responding? AG * > > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > icc > > -- > 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 on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/52eb299e-6825-4b3a-8707-5baad64db5f4n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/52eb299e-6825-4b3a-8707-5baad64db5f4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqB5yJAtJYa0SqrrnR2Te1Su6NfwxdqZOBenzBq2Y8jTg%40mail.gmail.com.
