Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 30, 2014 at 5:16 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2014 at 5:22 am by Rampant.A.I..)
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(June 26, 2014 at 2:05 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: No, he's saying if you stood on a planet in one of the furthest galaxies in the Hubble volume and pointed a telescope at where Earth is now, it wouldn't be there.
If you were looking through a telescope 13.7 billion years ago, there would be a lot of superheated plasma and debris in the way.
Of course the Earth wouldn't be there because it isn't as old as the Milky Way Galaxy. Besides, you can't see a planet this small, especially from a distant galaxy.
Hypothetical telescope, assuming one had a telescope powerful enough to pick out individual planets at extreme distance, any more than one could stand on a planet at the edge of the Hubble volume. But otherwise correct.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Since there's no evidence of superheated plasma and debris in the field of vision today there wouldn't have been any in the way 13.2 billion years ago when you looked out into space.
http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what...-big-bang/
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: To be clear the contention is that the distant galaxies we see are 13.7 light years away. So that means that they existed in the form that they are in 13.7 billion years ago. Do you agree?
Unclear phrasing, but the light we receive from them in the best photon buckets we have originated 13.7 million years ago, because of the speed at which light travels.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Now, my question was that since the Milky Way Galaxy is supposed to be about 13.2 billion years old if you were an observer at that time, 13.2 billion years ago, and looked out into space would you see the distant galaxies that you see now in addition to all of the ones between them and the Milky Way?
That's sort of a silly question, isn't it? It's sort of like asking if you took a selfie with your great great grandfather, how your hair would be styled, and whether or not you'd be wearing a The Damned t shirt.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Of course you wouldn't see the current stars we see now because they weren't in existence then but the galaxies were. And since we can see countless galaxies today they should have been visible 13.2 billion years ago because our galaxy existed at that time. Do you agree?
No. I don't agree that the galaxies we see now existed prior to the universe, or that our galaxy existed in it's present form .6 billion years after the universe began.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Don't confuse galaxies with individual stars, which come and go. Galaxies do merge and we are merging with the Milky Way now. Our Sun is a native of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.
Just what do you think we are measuring when we observe distant galaxies?
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Now to restate the question: You're floating around the Milky Way Galaxy 13.2 billion years ago looking out into space.
Uh huh.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Universe at that time is supposed to be 13.7 billion years old as measured by the time it takes for light to reach us from the farthest object.
So you're roughly doubling the best estimate of the age of our universe for some hypothetical.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So as you're looking out into space were are all of the galaxies that we can now see within 500 million light years of the new Milky Way Galaxy? Do you understand the question?
The Hubble volume is estimated to be 14 billion light years in diameter. The Milky Way is estimated to be 100,000 light years across. I'm not sure if neither you not I understand the question you're asking.
But, as an aside: I claim no expertise, but If you formulate the question in a way I can actually understand what you're asking, I'm in a position to txt your question to several astrophysicists, and people in the space program with experience building orbital telescopes, and would love to ask it.
(June 26, 2014 at 3:10 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: This is a depiction of objects today that are within 500 million light years of us. http://www.myastrologybook.com/Universe-...-years.htm
The “observable” universe is thought to consist of roughly:
- *10 million superclusters
- *25 billion galaxy groups
- *350 billion large galaxies
- *7 trillion dwarf galaxies
and *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars
(of which, almost 30 stars go supernova per second)
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/from-...niverse-2/
Could all of this material fit within a ball 500 million light years in diameter? You can ignore the *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars and just concentrate on the 350 billion large galaxies and 7 trillion dwarf galaxies.
I don't think you appreciate the scale we're discussing here, and I don't think personal incredulity should be a real factor.
http://htwins.net/scale2/
You keep saying 500 million light years, which I've only heard refer to the potential size of a galaxy. The universe appears to be significantly larger.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducator...verse.html