why does the government have the right to 'auction' (sell) bandwidth? do they own it? if so, from whom did they get it? could guns have anything to do with it? I wonder who gets the money and what they will do with it.
I hear what you're saying but my point is that the Hubble constant is relative, not absolute. Relative to the observer in a non-absolute location. The expansion is an exponential scalar motion without any center. Even the edge of the observable universe is relative to the observer. So it's fine to talk about the universe expanding, but expanding relative to what? By definition, the size (radius) of the universe is that of only the observable universe - relative to us. Someone way over at the edge (according to us) is likely to see a different observable universe that extends 13 billion light years in all directions from their center of observation, beyond which the expansion rate is > c (again relative to us only), so quite a bit of that is invisible to us and always will be.
So the limit of observability is 13 billion light years. Is it a coincidence that the calculated age of the universe (from only observables) is also 13 billion years? Of course not. Neither is the fact that the dimension of the Hubble constant is a frequency that resolves to 1/13 billion years. What is the probability of all those emerging without a common first principle? And what is the likelihood that we would happen to be at the center of the observable universe? About zero, to say nothing of the "total" universe. There is no reason at all to assume that we know the size or age of the "universe" and to throw that into the discussion of the Hubble constant (as many are on this thread) is meaningless.
yes. the prevailing conjecture seems to be at odds with a little einsteinian problem: no absolute rest, no absolute velocity. so what is expanding at that rate with respect to what? if they said the 'edge of the observable universe' then it would have meaning, but since there is a limit of observable range due to the fact that beyond a certain distance from the observer (us), a galaxy or quasar would be receding at a cumulative rate greater than the speed of light, and hence, exits the observable universe relative to our vantage point. thus, unless we are at the center of the universe - highly unlikely - then the observable universe is a subset of the total universe. so we really have no way of knowing the actual size of the universe, or whether it's infinite, in which case, saying it's expanding at a certain rate has no meaning at all.
Slashdot Mirror
why does the government have the right to 'auction' (sell) bandwidth? do they own it? if so, from whom did they get it? could guns have anything to do with it? I wonder who gets the money and what they will do with it.
I hear what you're saying but my point is that the Hubble constant is relative, not absolute. Relative to the observer in a non-absolute location. The expansion is an exponential scalar motion without any center. Even the edge of the observable universe is relative to the observer. So it's fine to talk about the universe expanding, but expanding relative to what? By definition, the size (radius) of the universe is that of only the observable universe - relative to us. Someone way over at the edge (according to us) is likely to see a different observable universe that extends 13 billion light years in all directions from their center of observation, beyond which the expansion rate is > c (again relative to us only), so quite a bit of that is invisible to us and always will be. So the limit of observability is 13 billion light years. Is it a coincidence that the calculated age of the universe (from only observables) is also 13 billion years? Of course not. Neither is the fact that the dimension of the Hubble constant is a frequency that resolves to 1/13 billion years. What is the probability of all those emerging without a common first principle? And what is the likelihood that we would happen to be at the center of the observable universe? About zero, to say nothing of the "total" universe. There is no reason at all to assume that we know the size or age of the "universe" and to throw that into the discussion of the Hubble constant (as many are on this thread) is meaningless.
If any astrophysicist knows I'd be surprised.
yes. the prevailing conjecture seems to be at odds with a little einsteinian problem: no absolute rest, no absolute velocity. so what is expanding at that rate with respect to what? if they said the 'edge of the observable universe' then it would have meaning, but since there is a limit of observable range due to the fact that beyond a certain distance from the observer (us), a galaxy or quasar would be receding at a cumulative rate greater than the speed of light, and hence, exits the observable universe relative to our vantage point. thus, unless we are at the center of the universe - highly unlikely - then the observable universe is a subset of the total universe. so we really have no way of knowing the actual size of the universe, or whether it's infinite, in which case, saying it's expanding at a certain rate has no meaning at all.
I find it fascinating that dimensional analysis of the expansion of space resolves to a frequency: 74.3 ((kilometers / second) / megaParsec) = 2.40789901 × 10-18 hertz http://www.google.com/#q=74.3+km/s+/+megaparsec http://www.ardeshirmehta.com/Relativity.html