At Rest with our Hubble view

[Layman]

Grumpy

You claim that the universe is finite because we can see the whole Big Bang event in the CMB. This simply cannot be true.

Take a flashlight for example, (it will represent the Big Bang event) flash it on then flash it off. You will no longer see the light after it goes off. Well, the flash from the Big Bang event has not gone off yet, but the Big Bang event is over. We can still see it today, and we will still see it tomorrow. We can see it billions of years after it happened. The point being if we have already seen the Big Bang event in its entirety then we would no longer have CMB radiation. It would have had to be at least so big that we would see distance parts of it 13.7 billion years later! So then since we have not noticed that the CMB radiation has stopped, we cannot claim that we have seen the entire BB event and that it is finite. In order for it to have been finite it would have to stop one day. We would have seen all the light there was to see traveling from it but we haven't.

 

[PhysBang]

Grumpy

You claim that the universe is finite because we can see the whole Big Bang event in the CMB. This simply cannot be true.

Take a flashlight for example, (it will represent the Big Bang event) flash it on then flash it off. You will no longer see the light after it goes off. Well, the flash from the Big Bang event has not gone off yet, but the Big Bang event is over. We can still see it today, and we will still see it tomorrow. We can see it billions of years after it happened. The point being if we have already seen the Big Bang event in its entirety then we would no longer have CMB radiation. It would have had to be at least so big that we would see distance parts of it 13.7 billion years later! So then since we have not noticed that the CMB radiation has stopped, we cannot claim that we have seen the entire BB event and that it is finite. In order for it to have been finite it would have to stop one day. We would have seen all the light there was to see traveling from it but we haven't.

The CMB is not from any so-called Big Bang event. It is from the hot plasma of the early universe, at least 100,000 years away from some Big Bang event. And if the universe was finite and rather small, we could still see the CMB, because the light could just, roughly, wrap around the universe and arrive back at our location again.

 

[PhysBang]

PhysBang

Edges imply there is something to have a boundary with. What is that something? If you cannot answer, your possibility isn't.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never claimed that the universe has an edge.

Answer that question before you say anything more about edges.

Put the crack pipe down before you ask me any more about edges.

Yes.

Then you need to go back to the astronomy textbooks.

We see the CMB and that is the furthest point in time it is possible to see, so everything else in the Universe is between us and the CMB IN THE DIMENSION OF TIME. Time is a distance in Cosmology, we cannot see the current distance in space because there has not been time for those photons to reach us. But that doesn't matter, we see the Whole Universe in the dimension of time(distance away from us is distance back in time). Additionally, every point in space is the place where the BB occurred, and every point sees all other points expanding from that center in the dimension of time, and since every point is 13.7 billion years from the first thing(the CMB)in all directions, they all see themselves as the center of the Universe. The CMB is 13.7 billion years from us, everything else in the Universe is closer to us in time. Until you get that time is a distance you will not understand this point.

The stuff you have written there does not make sense. I did graduate work in cosmology, so I know I understand it. You might want to think a little about what you are writing.

And that distance is 13.7 billion years in the dimension of time, there is nothing further away in time, as the furthest thing is at that distance(the CMB). Today the CMB is much further away in space, but we will never see it at that distance, in the future the CMB will not be visible at all.

The CMB is not far away, it is right here. The CMB is the photons that are reaching us. You might be talking of the plasma that released the CMB. If this is the case, then clearly you realize that we cannot now see the plasma that we within our solar system, since that was long gone. Similarly, as we get farther and farther away, we don't see the plasma from there. It is only in a very small region that we see any plasma in the form of the CMB. As time goes on, we see the plasma from farther and farther away, not the same plasma over and over again.

 

[brucep]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never claimed that the universe has an edge.

Put the crack pipe down before you ask me any more about edges.


Then you need to go back to the astronomy textbooks.

The stuff you have written there does not make sense. I did graduate work in cosmology, so I know I understand it. You might want to think a little about what you are writing.

The CMB is not far away, it is right here. The CMB is the photons that are reaching us. You might be talking of the plasma that released the CMB. If this is the case, then clearly you realize that we cannot now see the plasma that we within our solar system, since that was long gone. Similarly, as we get farther and farther away, we don't see the plasma from there. It is only in a very small region that we see any plasma in the form of the CMB. As time goes on, we see the plasma from farther and farther away, not the same plasma over and over again.

Like you said the CMBR is everywhere and has been since the [remnant] CMBR photons decoupled from any further interaction with matter.
The last scattering event happened everywhere in the universe so the remnant photons which make up the CMBR are everywhere in the universe, total CMBR energy remains constant while energy density, temperature decreases, and wavelength increases as the universe expands.

 

[Layman]

The CMB is not from any so-called Big Bang event. It is from the hot plasma of the early universe, at least 100,000 years away from some Big Bang event. And if the universe was finite and rather small, we could still see the CMB, because the light could just, roughly, wrap around the universe and arrive back at our location again.

Ya right, if the only reason we still see the CMB was because it had traveled around the universe then we would no longer even see it, since the universe is already too large for something to travel around it, remember that it is expanding, at the current rate of expansion even light could not go around it because frankly the outer edges of the visible universe is already traveling the speed of light. Any wave would just flat line from the expansion, but since we can still see the CMB radiation, I don't think this would be a viable theory. The lifetime of the universe just isn't large enough for this to be possible.

 

[brucep]

Ya right, if the only reason we still see the CMB was because it had traveled around the universe then we would no longer even see it, since the universe is already too large for something to travel around it, remember that it is expanding, at the current rate of expansion even light could not go around it because frankly the outer edges of the visible universe is already traveling the speed of light. Any wave would just flat line from the expansion, but since we can still see the CMB radiation, I don't think this would be a viable theory. The lifetime of the universe just isn't large enough for this to be possible.

Remaining clueless seems to be your goal. Good job.

 

[Layman]

Remaining clueless seems to be your goal. Good job.

This is actually a problem in Big Bang cosmology it is not my own personal theory. If there isn't enough lifetime in the universe for something to happen, then it would be safe to say that it didn't happen. The fact remains that we are clueless about it and I think current findings should just make us even that more clueless, they don't fit with previous theories. But, then I guess you are one of those that think the Big Bang has already been figured out because you actually don't know anything about it. Sorry to break it to you, but science is still a faith based religion when it comes to the Big Bang and how that has made our current state of the universe. It is though we are still waiting for "The Big Bang Theory" that describes details for the Big Bang up to current events that can show that it is the only viable theory. Most aspects of the Big Bang Theory is an unknown.

 

[Grumpy]

PhysBang

The CMB is not far away, it is right here. The CMB is the photons that are reaching us.

No, the CMB is the SOURCE of the photons that are just now reaching us from the glow of the Surface of Last Scattering some 300,000 years after the BB. It is the energy of the hot, dense plasma stretched by the expansion of the Universe to the equivalent to about 3 degrees above absolute zero. The radiation had been trapped until the electrons could combine with the hydrogen and helium(plus a taste of lithium)molecules, releasing the photons of the BB to start across the Universe. The Universe became clear where it had been opaque until then. It is not a flash, it is a glow, just like iron when heated red hot. And that source appears to be 13.7 billion ly away/13.7 billion years in the past(which is saying the same thing, time is a distance).

If this is the case, then clearly you realize that we cannot now see the plasma that we within our solar system, since that was long gone.

The past is visible in any good telescope. We don't see the plasma that used to occupy our neighborhood because nearer is closer in time, farther is backwards in time, and if you look, at 13.7 billion years in the past/lys distant, there is the first light of the Universe, the CMB. This is precisely what is meant by time being a distance in Cosmology. The closer it is the closer to us in time, the sun is 8 minutes away, Jupiter averages about 30 minutes away, the nearest star about 4 years away, the center of our galaxy about 50,000 years in the past(IE the photons we see started toward us some 50,000 years ago)and the CMB at 13.7 billion years away.

The point being if we have already seen the Big Bang event in its entirety then we would no longer have CMB radiation.

How many times must I say that the Universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years before you understand that simple statement? We see the CMB as the farthest visible thing in the Universe, we cannot see further into the past than that(though that could conceivable eventually be possible). The CMB is the radiation(photons)from the hot dense plasma that filled space at the time being released by the combination of electrons and nuclei. It is currently at 13.7 billion years and about 3 degrees above zero and it will remain visible until that area exceeds lightspeed relative to us due to expansion.

You claim that the universe is finite because we can see the whole Big Bang event in the CMB. This simply cannot be true.

No , I claim we can see the whole history of the Universe because we can see the CMB, the first visible thing in the Universe. Every other point that we can see is closer to us in time and every other point(area)in the Universe is visible to us, each at it's own distance in time. If we can still see the glow of the CMB(and we won't always be able to)there is no hidden part of the Universe, we can see it all(in principle, we need bigger telescopes and radio telescopes). It is like a movie, however, in that what we are seeing is all at various distances in the past, we are not seeing the Universe as it is today

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never claimed that the universe has an edge.

You certainly said that...well, here's the quote...

While this is part of the standard cosmological model, it is essentially an assumption that our position in the universe is not particularly different from other positions in the universe. It is possible that there is some edge to spacetime.

To which I responded with a question or two...

Edges imply there is something to have a boundary with. What is that something? If you cannot answer, your possibility isn't.

I did graduate work in cosmology, so I know I understand it.

Er...no.

Grumpy

 

[Layman]

How many times must I say that the Universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years before you understand that simple statement?

So I guess that it is absolutely necessary that I confirm the accuracy of this statement...

It seems you have mixed some statements from me an PhysicsBang. I never denied that the universe was not opaque at this time.

We see the CMB as the farthest visible thing in the Universe, we cannot see further into the past than that(though that could conceivable eventually be possible). The CMB is the radiation(photons)from the hot dense plasma that filled space at the time being released by the combination of electrons and nuclei.

So then what if we see the CMB in a thousand years from now? So then what if we see the CMB a million years from now? So what if we see the CMB a billion years from now? What if we could actually end up seeing CMB for the rest of time on to infinity !?! If the CMB radiation has been around for all of time then there would be no reason to think that it was finite based on these premises. We could very well see an opaque surface reseed for the rest of time, in this case the size of the universe at this time would have been infinite.

It is currently at 13.7 billion years and about 3 degrees above zero and it will remain visible until that area exceeds lightspeed relative to us due to expansion.

I don't think so, even the inhabitants of galaxies on the edge of the visible universe would notice that light still travels the speed of light faster than them. The current rate of expansion at the edge of the visible universe is already light speed. How many times must I say that? We cannot see anything further than objects would be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to us. Even so, the CMB still remains a steady glow of radiation.

No , I claim we can see the whole history of the Universe because we can see the CMB, the first visible thing in the Universe. Every other point that we can see is closer to us in time and every other point(area)in the Universe is visible to us, each at it's own distance in time. If we can still see the glow of the CMB(and we won't always be able to)there is no hidden part of the Universe, we can see it all(in principle, we need bigger telescopes and radio telescopes). It is like a movie, however, in that what we are seeing is all at various distances in the past, we are not seeing the Universe as it is today

Ah, but the universe wasn't opaque so we can't see all the way back further than the CMB, but as parts of the universe became opaque after that we could continue to see further and further into Big Bang. If it was small and finite then we would have already seen everything there was too see and all the light from that event would have passed us already.

 

[Grumpy]

Layman

It seems you have mixed some statements from me an PhysicsBang. I never denied that the universe was not opaque at this time.

If so, my bad.

So then what if we see the CMB in a thousand years from now? So then what if we see the CMB a million years from now? So what if we see the CMB a billion years from now?

We will still see it for several billion more years. Until it's relative motion exceeds lightpeed. In that period it will get colder and colder.

What if we could actually end up seeing CMB for the rest of time on to infinity

No, it is receding almost at light speed relative to Earth, when it exceeds that apparent speed it will no longer be visible, and additional parts of the Universe will start disappearing over our light horizon. THEN it will become impossible to see some parts of the Universe.

If the CMB radiation has been around for all of time then there would be no reason to think that it was finite based on these premises. We could very well see an opaque surface reseed for the rest of time, in this case the size of the universe at this time would have been infinite.

The CMB is 13.7 billion years in our past, it appears to be 13.7 billion ly in radius, but is actually much bigger. This is the history of our Universe going back in time(as you get farther away)to the very beginning, 13.7 billion years ago. TIME IS A DISTANCE.
Since time is a distance and the moment the light escaped from the dark ages is fixed in time, it will only appear to move further away, it will always have the same glow it did then, stretched by expansion to near absolute zero, just like a movie's first frames are still there when you reach the end(the present)and you can still look at those first frames, so the glow will be 13.8 billion years in the past, then it will be 13.9 billion years ago...getting cooler and moving faster until it slips over our light horizon and disappears.

I don't think so, even the inhabitants of galaxies on the edge of the visible universe would notice that light still travels the speed of light faster than them.

Of course, they are largely stationary(compared to lightspeed)to their local space as we are to ours. I did repeatedly use the term APPARENT SPEED, didn't I. And I did say their speed relative to us because of the expansion of the Universe.

Ah, but the universe wasn't opaque so we can't see all the way back further than the CMB, but as parts of the universe became opaque after that we could continue to see further and further into Big Bang.

Opaque means the opposite of clear. And the events that happened in the past are over, we are just looking at the photons they emitted during that period at that point. Once the Universe's temperature dropped enough for electrons and nuclei to combine it did not become opaque again, except in some special local circumstances(say, the atmosphere of a star). We will probably never see any closer than the CMB to the Big Bang.

If it was small and finite then we would have already seen everything there was too see and all the light from that event would have passed us already.

Depends on where you are looking and how far away in time. If you point your telescope toward a star that is 100 light years away you will see the events that happened to that star 100 years ago, you will not see events that happened 1000 years ago, that light has passed you, you will not see events that happened 50 years ago, that light has not yet reached you.The events happened, as time passes the image of those events gets further away(in time and apparent distance, as well as actual distance in space at the present moment), lower in frequency and redder but the image is still there. Eventually the expansion of the Universe will increase the APPARENT speed of the CMB to over lightspeed and it will disappear.

Grumpy

 

[PhysBang]

No, the CMB is the SOURCE of the photons...

If that's how you want to use the term, them fine. It's not how the term is used in scientific papers.

The past is visible in any good telescope. We don't see the plasma that used to occupy our neighborhood because nearer is closer in time, farther is backwards in time, and if you look, at 13.7 billion years in the past/lys distant, there is the first light of the Universe, the CMB. This is precisely what is meant by time being a distance in Cosmology. The closer it is the closer to us in time, the sun is 8 minutes away, Jupiter averages about 30 minutes away, the nearest star about 4 years away, the center of our galaxy about 50,000 years in the past(IE the photons we see started toward us some 50,000 years ago)and the CMB at 13.7 billion years away.

Exactly. Now think it through to the CMB and you will realize that the CMB that we see (as you use the term) is only a small fraction of the entire CMB.

How many times must I say that the Universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years before you understand that simple statement? We see the CMB as the farthest visible thing in the Universe, we cannot see further into the past than that(though that could conceivable eventually be possible). The CMB is the radiation(photons)from the hot dense plasma that filled space at the time being released by the combination of electrons and nuclei. It is currently at 13.7 billion years and about 3 degrees above zero and it will remain visible until that area exceeds lightspeed relative to us due to expansion.

You are responding to something I never wrote. You are confusing my responses with those of Layman, with whom I do not agree.

Like I said before, please do not respond to my posts when you are inebriated.

No , I claim we can see the whole history of the Universe because we can see the CMB,

When I asked whether you were talking about all points of space, you said that you were talking about all points of space.

You certainly said that...well, here's the quote...

Yes, I said that there were possible spacetimes with edges. I didn't claim that the universe we live in has an edge. These are two different things.
There are many, many different kinds of boundaries that can be imposed on spacetimes.

You seem to think that I am denying the standard cosmological model. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was merely pointing out, as the NASA scientists do on their website, that the standard cosmological model includes the option of an infinite space. You also seem to have some bizarre ideas about this model, from where I know not.

 

[Farsight]

Precisely. That explicitly rules out any inhomogeneities in terms of permittivity and permeability, because that would contradict observation.

Absolutely not Markus. We observe optical clocks going slower when they're lower. You know the same would be true of parallel-mirror light clocks. We observe the Shapiro delay. We observe gravitational lensing, and you don't see a rainbow kaleidoscope when you look through your binoculars.

In short - inhomogeneous flat space ( varying speed of light ) is not physically equivalent to curved space-time.

Actually, I wasn't talking about mirrors, only about whether or not "inhomogeneous space" is equivalent to "curved space-time". Clearly, it isn't, for reasons explained above.

That is not in accord with Einstein. He referred to inhomogeneous space and a varying speed of light. I'm afraid you're clutching at straws Markus, and advancing a straw-man argument. Remember I explained the distinction between curved spacetime and curved space. Curved spacetime is not curved space. So what's the state of space in a region where we say spacetime is curved? it isn't curved. So what is it?

 

[PhysBang]

Absolutely not Markus. We observe optical clocks going slower when they're lower. You know the same would be true of parallel-mirror light clocks. We observe the Shapiro delay. We observe gravitational lensing, and you don't see a rainbow kaleidoscope when you look through your binoculars.

Yeah.

It makes it really hard to actually have a dialogue with you when you are going to merely invent physics rather than study any of it.

That is not in accord with Einstein. He referred to inhomogeneous space and a varying speed of light.

That is two lies. 1) Einstein referied to inhomogeneous spacetime in one public lecture and promoted a cosmological model that had a homogeneous distribution of matter in space. 2) Einstein dropped the variable speed of light theory when he finally developed GR.

Even though you don't actually know GR, there are years of people on the internet pointing out this mistakes of yours. Why continue lying?

 

[Markus Hanke]

Absolutely not Markus. We observe optical clocks going slower when they're lower. You know the same would be true of parallel-mirror light clocks. We observe the Shapiro delay. We observe gravitational lensing, and you don't see a rainbow kaleidoscope when you look through your binoculars.

Once again, I am not talking about light clocks, I am talking about gravitational light deflection. And precisely because we don't see a kaleidoscope effect, as you rightly say, this phenomenon is not due to inhomogeneous space.

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws Markus

Am I really ? I believe I have made a pretty strong argument to show why light deflection cannot be due to inhomogeneities in permittivity and permeability, as you claim. If you wish to formally refute that argument, feel free to try and do so.

 

[Farsight]

I'll use a reductio ad absurdum.

It's important that we approach this issue starting with light clocks, because they deliver the "big picture" that is important for understanding. I've previously pointed out that the NIST optical clocks go measurably slower when they're 30cm lower. The NIST optical clock is essentially an atomic clock which employs optical frequency light in lieu of the microwave frequency used in the NIST Caesium clock. Both types of clock go slower when they're lower, to the same degree, regardless of frequency. And there is no literal proper time "flowing" within those clocks. All clocks feature some form of regular cyclic motion. It doesn't matter whether it's an atomic clock, a mechanical clock, a quartz wristwatch, or a parallel-mirror light-clock. They effectively count this regular cyclical motion and display a cumulative result called the time. When the clock goes slower it's because the motion goes slower, not because some abstract thing called proper time is flowing slower. We can depict it thus: View attachment 6338 . This is somewhat idealised, but it hopefully shows you patent scientific evidence in a visceral form: there is no proper time present, and those two light pulses are not moving at the same speed. When we place light clocks in an equatorial plane around the Earth and plot their readings, we find that our plot looks like this. The curvature we can see on this plot relates to Weyl thence Riemann curvature. A clock does NOT go slower when it's lower because your plot of measured clock rates, your metric, exhibits curvature. Instead it goes slower in line with "the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame".

Again please refer to the Baez article where you can read "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position". Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity". The interpretation make even more sense when you appreciate that Einstein used the word geschwindigkeit, and that if he really did mean velocity in the vector sense, his statement would have been "light can only curve when it curves". This is tautological nonsense. So is the statement lower down in the Baez article where you can read "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies".

How can it not make sense to say that it varies when this contradicts patent scientific evidence, and what Einstein said, and moreover converts Einstein's statement to nonsense? It is absurd.

What's not absurd is to accept what Einstein said, and what you can see with your own eyes, and that c=√(1/ε0μ0).

I rest my case.

 

[Markus Hanke]

What's not absurd is to accept what Einstein said, and what you can see with your own eyes, and that c=√(1/ε0μ0).

What I see with my own eyes is that there is no "rainbow effect" when it comes to gravitational light deflection; in other words, said deflection is not frequency dependend. Hence we are not dealing with refraction here, and thus the speed of light cannot be different closer to a massive body than it is far away from same body. You can give as many textual quotes as you like, but that very straightforward fact ( i.e. absence of frequency dependency ) rules out any "inhomogeneous space". It is quite simply contrary to observation. On the other hand, all these phenomena ( light deflection and clock rates ) are in perfect accordance with curved space-time.

Go figure.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

there is no proper time present, and those two light pulses are not moving at the same speed.

Einstein said that lightspeed in a vacuum WILL BE MEASURED TO BE THE SAME within each frame of reference, he did not say that there was a proper time which was unchanging between all frames of reference. Time and lightspeed are inversely porportional. At lightspeed time stops (from the Universe's frame looking at a moving object), at rest with the local norm(average of the nearest frames)time moves at it's MAXIMUM rate. Time is not fixed, there's no such thing as a proper time, it's all relative.

Both types of clock go slower when they're lower, to the same degree, regardless of frequency.

The clocks are showing that time gets dilated by the bending of spacetime that mass causes. Strangely enough mass/energy and lightspeed are exponentially coupled together. If a mass approaches lightspeed it's energy increases , it's mass grows, it takes more and more energy to get smaller and smaller incremential increases in speed. At lightspeed energy contained, energy requirements to accelerate and mass go toward infinity, even if the mass was a single electron. This is why it will always be impossible for anything with mass to ever reach lightspeed(and we see nothing in the Universe that does go that fast, not even Cosmic Rays, particles spit out of the most energetic processes in the Universe). Same thing happens when mass gathers in a single, non-moving(relatively)point. In the case of Earth the effect is very small, but measurable(and will be on ANY kind of clock, if they are accurate enough), but at a certain radius from a Black Hole time stops.

Again please refer to the Baez article where you can read "A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position". Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity". The interpretation make even more sense when you appreciate that Einstein used the word geschwindigkeit, and that if he really did mean velocity in the vector sense, his statement would have been "light can only curve when it curves".

Einstein says that light does not curve, it follows a straight path through curved spacetime.

This is tautological nonsense. So is the statement lower down in the Baez article where you can read "the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies".

The speed of light is not only observed to be constant(in a vacuum), it is observed to be constant(in a vacuum)no matter how fast the observer is moving, no matter how close to a mass he is. This is probably the most well tested fact there is. Your not going to get rid of the fact that Relativity is the survivor of over 100 years of every test scientists could conceive, it has never failed a single one. You need to put your efforts into trying to understand it.

Grumpy

 

[Layman]

We will still see it for several billion more years. Until it's relative motion exceeds lightpeed. In that period it will get colder and colder.

I don't know where you are getting this from, but it seems like complete nonsense. Do you have a reference for this?

I don't see how we could ever come to an agreement while you suffer from these types of delusions. You can't look through a telescope and then see an opaque surface from the Big Bang. I would think that the opaque surface has already started to exceed us faster than the speed of light.

You seem unwilling to accept that the furthest we can see from Hubble is distance galaxies traveling close to the speed of light that then increase in number the more you zoom in on small areas, beyond that there is nothing but darkness and CMB radiation. The universe just doesn't seem like it would be young enough to even be able to see an opaque surface from a short time after the Big Bang, and the visible universe would be too small to say that the CMB radiation is coming from a distance where the expansion would be less than the speed of light.

I really don't see how the CMB radiation could be defined as coming from a distance where the expansion is less than the speed of light relative to us, when at that distance we just see galaxies that have already formed. It seems like you are missing part of the big picture from the Hubble view, and I could only assume that it is just false information.

 

[Daybreak]

What creates this radiation can be defined by any equation,
It is not some consummation, nor a form of emancipation
it is elementary as any article, and defined by all laws in just one particle
Tertiary before mortuary as all laws increase such a vocabulary
If all in all are raised before fall
those who assume all laws will gain only my applause.

 

[AlexG]

Do we have a bad poetry thread for Daybreak to play around in?