A Miscalculation?
Nov 29, 2022 8:17:37 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Nov 29, 2022 8:17:37 GMT -5
A Miscalculation?
by Radrook
Ever hear the song, Row Row Row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily Life is but a dream. This is exactly the impression that the universe provides us with when we attempt to perceive its distant objects. It is similar to a person walking down this infinitely long road and constantly leaving behind images of yourself as you appeared at that moment, images of you a toddler, then as a small child then as an adolescent and then as an adult, them as middle aged ad then as you reach old age. Imagine that a very distant observer were counting how many of you there are in existence within his time-frame.
Would he or she or it not be in the danger of believing that there are not one but many of you each one separate from yourself. If the images would pile up over time sufficiently, even millions of you might be claimed to exist when in all reality, the only one who really exists is the one who is presently walking on the road. The others are merely images of what was but no longer is. In short, the illusion of many is being mistaken for the reality.
In a similar fashion, the glowing objects in the universe are perceived by distant observers as existing now. This creates the illusion of objects many objects existing as they appear to us now when in reality they have drastically changed both in appearance and location. This phenomenon is caused by the finite velocity of light which is approx 186,000 miles per second. Fast from an Earth viewpoint since at that velocity you could circle Earth seven and a half times in one second, but very slow in relation to the distances it has to travel in order to be perceived by distant observers in other galaxies and even in relation to nearby stars. In fact, some of that light takes billions of years to reach an observer who will perceive the object as it was billions of years before and not as it is within his moment of existence. .In short, the galaxies that we see at those vast distances, as opposed to the ones that are closer, might be the same galaxies we are seeing at closer distances albeit when they were first forming.
For example, we see the light from our nearest galaxy the Andromeda as it left that galaxy two million years ago. Since that time, that galaxy has undergone change and is no longer at the location that we are perceiving it to be. In fact it is much more closer since it has been approaching us at approx 110 kilometers per second or 68 miles a second and a lateral motion of 7.7 km/s for those two million years. Multiply the numbers to see how much closer it really is than what it seems to be.
But the situation becomes even more drastic as the distances increase. We see the center of our Milky Way the way it was approx. 36,000 years ago because that’s how long its light has taken to reach us. Whatever we see occurring in that region of space, happened at that time and not recently or now. None of the objects there are as we are seeing them. They are somewhere else, in fact, many might not even exist any longer as they appear in our skies. Some might have gone supernova long ago and are now presently black holes. Still others might have swelled to red Giants after having consumed all their hydrogen and shifted to fusing helium instead. The same holds true for the rest of our universe.
One curious thing about, it is that the farther away we look, the simpler galaxies appear to be-right? While the nearer ones have well defined centers with spiral arms and others are elliptical. In short, the closer to us we look the more developed they are. So as you yourself have often stated, they are no longer in existence in those rudimentary semi-disorganized blob-like conditions. Which brings up a very significant question of why you are counting what is essentially a mirage as if they were all separate objects when they are merely the same objects in different stages of development? Why aren’t you astronomers making an effort to subtract all these mirages from their estimate of numbers of galaxies and stars to arrive at a far more accurate total?
So it’s very surprising when you, as an astronomers don’t take that very important illusory factor into consideration. It seems tantamount to counting photographs of dead people and claiming them in the census? That would be silly, now, wouldn’t it? Can you actually imagine a census taker counting photographs of people who have died long ago as if they were presently alive and claiming that the still live at locations which they no longer do? Would we accept such a claim? Of course not.
Yet we accept the count of all these stars and galaxies at distances which indicate that they no longer exist at those locations nor in those early primitive forms. How many of these points of light are merely the record of our closer galaxies in their infancies? Perhaps that vast majority? So it seems as if astronomers are greatly inflating the number of stars and galaxies in existence for some mysterious reason by irresponsibly ignoring this very crucial factor that should be obvious is essential to the accurate estimate So , just as in the case of the traveler on the road, the universe provides a window into its distant past and not an observation of the present.
Would he or she or it not be in the danger of believing that there are not one but many of you each one separate from yourself. If the images would pile up over time sufficiently, even millions of you might be claimed to exist when in all reality, the only one who really exists is the one who is presently walking on the road. The others are merely images of what was but no longer is. In short, the illusion of many is being mistaken for the reality.
In a similar fashion, the glowing objects in the universe are perceived by distant observers as existing now. This creates the illusion of objects many objects existing as they appear to us now when in reality they have drastically changed both in appearance and location. This phenomenon is caused by the finite velocity of light which is approx 186,000 miles per second. Fast from an Earth viewpoint since at that velocity you could circle Earth seven and a half times in one second, but very slow in relation to the distances it has to travel in order to be perceived by distant observers in other galaxies and even in relation to nearby stars. In fact, some of that light takes billions of years to reach an observer who will perceive the object as it was billions of years before and not as it is within his moment of existence. .In short, the galaxies that we see at those vast distances, as opposed to the ones that are closer, might be the same galaxies we are seeing at closer distances albeit when they were first forming.
For example, we see the light from our nearest galaxy the Andromeda as it left that galaxy two million years ago. Since that time, that galaxy has undergone change and is no longer at the location that we are perceiving it to be. In fact it is much more closer since it has been approaching us at approx 110 kilometers per second or 68 miles a second and a lateral motion of 7.7 km/s for those two million years. Multiply the numbers to see how much closer it really is than what it seems to be.
But the situation becomes even more drastic as the distances increase. We see the center of our Milky Way the way it was approx. 36,000 years ago because that’s how long its light has taken to reach us. Whatever we see occurring in that region of space, happened at that time and not recently or now. None of the objects there are as we are seeing them. They are somewhere else, in fact, many might not even exist any longer as they appear in our skies. Some might have gone supernova long ago and are now presently black holes. Still others might have swelled to red Giants after having consumed all their hydrogen and shifted to fusing helium instead. The same holds true for the rest of our universe.
One curious thing about, it is that the farther away we look, the simpler galaxies appear to be-right? While the nearer ones have well defined centers with spiral arms and others are elliptical. In short, the closer to us we look the more developed they are. So as you yourself have often stated, they are no longer in existence in those rudimentary semi-disorganized blob-like conditions. Which brings up a very significant question of why you are counting what is essentially a mirage as if they were all separate objects when they are merely the same objects in different stages of development? Why aren’t you astronomers making an effort to subtract all these mirages from their estimate of numbers of galaxies and stars to arrive at a far more accurate total?
So it’s very surprising when you, as an astronomers don’t take that very important illusory factor into consideration. It seems tantamount to counting photographs of dead people and claiming them in the census? That would be silly, now, wouldn’t it? Can you actually imagine a census taker counting photographs of people who have died long ago as if they were presently alive and claiming that the still live at locations which they no longer do? Would we accept such a claim? Of course not.
Yet we accept the count of all these stars and galaxies at distances which indicate that they no longer exist at those locations nor in those early primitive forms. How many of these points of light are merely the record of our closer galaxies in their infancies? Perhaps that vast majority? So it seems as if astronomers are greatly inflating the number of stars and galaxies in existence for some mysterious reason by irresponsibly ignoring this very crucial factor that should be obvious is essential to the accurate estimate So , just as in the case of the traveler on the road, the universe provides a window into its distant past and not an observation of the present.