Active Now

CosmicWunderkind
Discussion » Questions » Science and Technology » We know space is billions of light years across more than it is billions of years old so when telescopes look across space and back in time
O-uknow

We know space is billions of light years across more than it is billions of years old so when telescopes look across space and back in time

how do they compensate for the fact that like a wave space expands and compresses throwing all natural calculations off? If something is a light year away and we are saying the universe is six months old do we really know the age of the universe, for example?

Posted - December 3, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 2515
    1. Scientists have developed a standard model for measuring the age of the universe.
    2. This model is called ACDM--Lambda cold dark matter model. 
    3. It provides the properties of the cosmos: microwave background, distributions of galaxies, elements present in cosmos---hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. It also shows the light from distance galaxies and supernovae, to explain the expansion of the universe. 
    4. There is another model, called MOND, modified Newtonian dynamics, created in 1983. This model uses modified gravity, however, this model does not account for observable properties of galaxy clusters and no cosmological model has been constructed for the theory. The problem is---they can't identify dark matter! 
      December 3, 2016 11:01 AM MST
    1

  • 44796
    Thou hast done thine homework. Creating models that only astrophysicists can understand is not valid. They just make things up to make the solutions to their equations work. How smug of them. Many amateur scientists such as us who can't do the math follow their paths. Nonsense. I am working on a logical proof that dark matter can't exist unless we throw out Newtonian physics. I want to make it so that anyone with a modest knowledge of such things will understand.
      December 3, 2016 1:28 PM MST
    1

  • 2515
    @Element, I like reading about science. The physics people, indeed, make up their own "knowledge", along with the math. What gets me is the amount of money they spend on proving each particle. The standard model is complete, yet it is not enough. On to string theory, which can't be proven. So they are like fairy tales---wishful thinking. I wish I could read the data NASA has out there online from NED. It's all in code. Still, it's fun to read. 
      December 4, 2016 11:48 AM MST
    0

  • Ah, but I believe Steven Hawkings is right when he asserts that what scientists need is a Universal Field Theory that can unite Quantum, Newtonian and Macrocosmic Physics, and which can be physically tested for proof.
    Their attempts at mathematical modelling are an essential part of the journey towards finding that missing link.

    We cannot know the practical outcome of such knowledge, but my guess is that like all new discoveries, it can lead to stupendous changes in technology and life, some of them tremendous blessings and others horrific beyond imagining.
      December 4, 2016 12:36 PM MST
    0

  • 17706
    English please.  ;)
      December 3, 2016 11:16 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    I would imagine they use mathematics...;-D...

      December 3, 2016 11:42 AM MST
    3

  • 44796
    Yes...math that only "they" understand.
      December 3, 2016 1:29 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @e99 -- Right, there's a global cabal of physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists, mathematicians, etc. who are all in on the conspiracy to deceive us about the size/age of the Universe. Get a grip.



      December 3, 2016 1:34 PM MST
    0

  • 44796
    Not a conspiracy...Just an "I'm smarter than you." attitude. Cool pic...I must get one of those. This post was edited by Element 99 at December 4, 2016 11:38 AM MST
      December 4, 2016 11:37 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @E99 -- Your reply above makes a distinction without a difference. You are making the claim the scientists who have learned the mathematics used to describe the size/shape/history of the Universe somehow consider themselves members of The Cool Kids Club and are restricting membership to that club.

    That is utter nonsense and falls into the realm of risible conspiracy theories.
      December 4, 2016 11:45 AM MST
    0

  • 44796
    We can agree to disagree. By the way, instead of insulting me ( which I don't give a crap about) what is YOUR answer to the original question. How many classes of Quantum Physics and Calculus have you attended? How many Astronomy classes have you attended? If your answer is "many" then the question should be easy to answer.
      December 4, 2016 3:00 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @e99 -- I am not insulting you. I am ridiculing your practice of believing nonsense about how science is practiced in the real world. You may be a perfectly fine person otherwise.

    I have no answer to the original question because the question does not make sense. The original question speaks of "...space expands and compresses..." Really? How does the person asking the question know this? What is the magnitude of this compression/expansion? Is in uniform across the Universe or is it isotropic? Is in constant across time or does it vary?

    Implicit in the question is a claim of detailed knowledge about the structure of the Universe, which the person asking the question believes thousands of scientists are ignoring, either through lack of knowledge or deliberate deceit. What evidence does he present of this deception? That would be none.

    The question might as well be, "What does the Green Cheese the Moon is made of taste like?" The answer to that question is either:

    A) The Moon is NOT made of Green Cheese, which is why no scientist has answered the question

    or

    B) There is a vast conspiracy of silence among Moon-studying astromomers to not discuss the Moon cheese. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 4, 2016 3:25 PM MST
      December 4, 2016 3:24 PM MST
    0

  • 44796
    I re-read the original question and it is nonsense. I like the strings that go with them though.
      December 5, 2016 6:54 AM MST
    0

  • 1481
    i dunno but space seems so much big, when we think about the other galaxies and all that...


    its too big... enough our own solar system take HUUUGE steppss to do things inside....
      December 3, 2016 1:06 PM MST
    1

  • 44796
    I am old school and still believe in the Hubble model: the faster it recedes from us, the farther away it is. The Doppler shift is real. I still believe in the standard candle...Cepheid variables etc. Occam's Razor...the simpler, the better. This post was edited by Element 99 at December 3, 2016 7:22 PM MST
      December 3, 2016 1:17 PM MST
    1

  • Ordinary language can't adequately describe the properties of quantam or macrocosmic physics. 
    A person has to be advanced in mathematics to be able to understand it properly.
    None of the science journalism that attempts to describe it to us lay people describes it as written in your question. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 4, 2016 11:49 AM MST
      December 4, 2016 2:07 AM MST
    2

  • 44796
    Agreed.
      December 4, 2016 11:38 AM MST
    0