 |
 GALAXY BILLIARD POOL BALL BALLS CUES $99.00 Time Remaining: 21h Buy It Now for only: $99.00 |
 RARE Vintage GALAXY retro small Fan for the pool room $24.99 Time Remaining: 2d 8h 27m |
Accurate distance measurement in universe by speed of light? Impossible....?
I challenge the accuracies of distances measured in the universe by speed of light. We know that nothing is stationary in the universe. I would say the entire universe is spinning itself at the rate beyond our imagination. We believe that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. But, I would say that Universe itself is spinning at much larger speed than the speed of light and that accelerates everything in it. The wall acceleration generates enough gravitational pool inside the universe and provides rate that moves everything inside it. It is possible that the point we are looking as the deep viewing (14 billion LY) of galactic cluster may come closer to us one day, that means Andromeda Galaxy and/or the other neighboring galaxies would move billions of LT away from us.
Everyone (especially scientists) challenge distance measurement in the universe. Not because they do not believe in them (most agree that the Universe is huge), but because our distance scale is built of smaller units which, themselves, have a degree of uncertainty.
The distance to the closest stars are measured by parallax (difference in apparent position over 6 months). From those, we build a relationship between spectrum and absolute magnitude. Next come distances by "spectral parallax", i.e., the guessing of a star's absolute magnitude from its spectrum. Comparing the absolute magnitude with the apparent magnitude gives us a distance estimate. The "guessing" is relatively accurate, but there is always a small degree of uncertainty.
Next, we use Cepheids (and other special variable stars) to measure even greater distances. The idea is that there is a relationship between the mean absolute magnitude of these stars and the period of variability. With Cepheids, we measure distances to some of the nearest galaxies. There is some uncertainty in the relationship, and that is on top of the uncertainty in the original data due to the uncertainty of the distance obtained by spectral parallax, due to uncertainty of the distances obtained from stellar parallax... you get the picture. Tiny errors do build up when you are forced to carry them into the next step.
In some of the galaxies for which we have distances, we have observed Type Ia (one a) supernovae: stars that explode in a very precise way, when they reach a relatively precise mass. When we observe the same kind of supernova in a further galaxy, then we estimate the distance to that galaxy by comparing the apparent magnitude of its supernova with that of the supernova in the closer galaxies.
We now have a large enough sample to see a trend: the further away a galaxy is, the more redshifted its light seems to be. From that, we have set up a distance scale that is based on the shift of certain lines in the galactic spectra. This shift is due to the expansion of space itself. We have even learned to distinguish this redshift from the redshift caused by gravity (if ever we are analysing the light from a particularly massive galaxy).
So, is there uncertainty in our distance measurements. Sure there is. If we say that galaxy A is 10 times further away than galaxy B, we may not be willing to bet our entire paycheck on it being exactly 10.00 times. however, we feel quite confident that A is not 217 times further away and that A is not just 2 times futher away.
Is the universe spinning? Possibly. Is the universe (including the part we cannot see because its light has not had time to reach us yet) infinite? Some think so.
If that is the case, even if the rate of rotation is small locally, it still amounts to an "infinite" speed at an infinite distance from us.
However, it is difficult to imagine the meaning of a rotating universe if the universe is everything there is. It is rotating around what or in relation to what?
As to the further point we can see right now at 14 billion light years: we are seeing this point as it was 14 billion years ago. Because of the expansion of space, it is most probably much further away from us now, if we could see it where it is now, not where it was 14 billion years ago.
For it to be closer to us, it would have had to move towards us at almost the speed of light. If that were the case, its light would not appear to be so redshifted as it does. In fact, the blue shift due to the approaching speed should cancel out the redshift cause by the expansion of space. There should be no redshift left. Yet, the light we see is very redshifted.
Whether or not the furthest point is approaching us should not affect the position of Andromeda until the object gets very close to us. In fact, Andromeda and the Milky Way (our Galaxy) are in orbit around each other; Andromeda is approaching us and in a few billion years, it is possible that the two galaxies begin to merge into a giant elliptical galaxy. This will take place well before any galaxy seen at 14 billion light-years gets here.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Hot Hot Pool Party (14)