Here is their findings:
So that's effectively light speed as far as the stationary observer remaining on Earth is concerned. The edge of the observable universe for this stationary observer is around 46.6 billion light years away, and so the space ship appears to take 46.6 billion years to get there.
This is fun. It's not every day you get to see a glaring hole in our understanding of physics. Screenshot of chat with gpt thingy - the top and bottom parts can't both be true.
yeah, i believe that the universe is a "finite but unbounded" volume, or a "hypersphere" back in the old days there was computer games where you would go off the left of the screen and reappear on the right, asteroids was one, i think. well, you can do that with a 2d horizontal where also you keep on passing the same game objects.
this is a special type of geometry, really it's a topology but the same thing applies to a sphere, as regards to the two dimensional surface. you can keep on going in one direction and will pass over the same points over and over again, later.
so, since circles, with their unbounded but finite geometry are the rule in space, and right down to the subatomic, almost everything is formed out of clusters of spheroid objects, in my opinion it makes sense that there is no "edge" to the universe. however, there would be a horizon - the point at which light being sent in your direction is emitted from an object that is travelling at the speed of light relative to you. before that point, you get the "doppler effect" or more famously known as the "red shift" and pretty much all objects seen in space are moving away from us, except for close stuff, mostly just in our galaxy.
so, the "edge of the universe" is, in my opinion, eventually going to be as stupid as saying there's an edge to the earth. it also causes an interesting conundrum then too because if space itself is fixed, ie, not expanding, then why is everything seeming to be flying away from us, that isn't really close and caught in the gravitational pull of the galaxy around us?
it doesn't really disobey the light speed limit, because only matter is bound by that. space itself isn't bound by the light speed limit, so if it was increasing, the only way you would know is by zooming in and in until you eventually find no more stars in your view. yes, they would be ancient, that's beside the point, but the void beyond, is not empty space. it's the point at which objects are moving too fast away from you for their photons to pass through that horizon point.
i know normie jerkoff debunking science types would say "you are saying the speed of light is not a limit" but i'm not, i'm saying, that this limit is contradictory to the a) ever increasing distance away that everything in the universe is moving from us, and b) we are on such a small scale that it's possible that if the whole universe is growing like a millimetre per femtosecond, and the finite unbounded volume model is correct, then there IS objects moving away from us faster than the speed of light. but you wouldn't be able to know, unless you saw an object dip out over that threshold into the void.
i suspect we may be close to being able to see that far out so it's possible at some point the astronomers are going to be scratching their heads trying to explain why it looked like a star just totally blipped out of sight. this would be the explanation.
anyway, part of the reason why i came up with the idea of space itself expanding, is because it gives a basis for the idea that matter is in fact a process of waves moving over the "fabric" of space, that have properties that re-converge their position by "directing" the space to expand out of the objects constantly, and this "directing" is a form of basically limitless (effectively as much as you could possibly use) energy. that maintains the inertia of matter. stuff keeps moving, spinning, and interacting in their fields because of something to do with the way that matter retains its relative position to other matter, creates a soft-edged "bubble" around objects that when these bubbles touch, like two drops of water, they optimize their volume to maintain efficient release of that pressure that would otherwise drive them apart at light speed.
so it's like a fluid with zero mass, that is constantly flowing outwards from every point in space. and actually, every point in space, never actually moves, it just pushes space around itself to change relative position to another object (this is also why newton's law you have to push back to go forwards). you are pushing the *space* from in front of you, around you and behind you.
Oh. I forgot about the Doppler effect. Okay... Mayyyybe it does make sense. Need a min, I actually haven't finished reading your whole note
yeah, i don't even know how to describe what it would be. but the light travels at a constant speed through space, so the faster it's moving away, the lower the frequency. at a certain point it will dip below the visible spectrum down to radio waves (that's why there is so much use of microwave imaging in James Webb telescope) because a lot of visible light fades out of sight at a certain distance. and it continues to fade down until it's basically gonna be ELF radio waves, and then darkness beyond that distance.
consider that the Star Wars art only occurs in a [single] 'galaxy, far far away'
yeah, i wonder how fast you have to go to actually be able to physically move to a certain distance in space since everything is flying away from us.
i don't think anything will look like what we see from here if we were travelling fast enough to slow down (blue shift) the light coming towards us, whether it would be where you saw that it was, by the time you get there.
it's a total mind-blinder to think about. i mean, if you could teleport to the position, it wouldn't be the position anymore, everything would have long since moved to a new position. and if it's expanding, it would be proportionally that much further away.
We could take the speed of light and infer where the object will be when we arrive, so we aim for that spot. But if we have anything wrong with our understanding of space expansion or light, then we'll miss and everyone will die.
I think you explained why we can see things 46 billion yr away even though the universe is only 13 billion years old. I think it makes sense now. I'm not sure if that was your goal, but thanks.
yeah, it's even possible that some of the galaxies we think we are looking at are our galaxy, long ago lol
Ah! I've had this idea too. Not based on anything, just being trippy. But what if ALL of the galaxies are just our galaxy but at different times?
yeah, it would be extremely hard to know because you can barely see individual stars in most other galaxies at all.
i sorta thought of this before but then i was like, "but muh doppler effect" so i decided that space must be expanding and pushing everything apart at larger scales. but what if space is static in volume, then implicitly, ... see, i can't wrap my head around this. if space is expanding then it becomes less finite the longer the time you are looking at, and it also challenges the idea that light speed is a constant.
i mean, one of the conundrums of that itself, is if gravity changes the speed of light (because light speed is distance over time) then if the time is way longer, subjectively at higher gravity, than at low gravity (this is confirmed also) then at high gravity light speed MUST be slowing down, and eventually reach a point where with sufficient mass around, light stops entirely. i mean, supposedly photons don't have mass, so it's not gravity causing it, it's time.
Ah shit, my brain broke.
This is probably why black holes have event horizons
yes, it's time. not mass. but there is some relationship between time and mass. i mean, refraction works on this same principle too, newton's prism rainbow happens because different frequencies of light slow down going through the material. so there is also that at play as well, just to make it even more insanely incomprehensible. probably basically the light must be stopping to wait for atoms to get out of the way, due to the harmonics between the spins of the matter particles and the light. so i'm not sure if that is exactly the same thing, i can't tell, is it a scale thing? light travels slower through dense objects as well, so could it be that the light is experiencing time distortion?
The last time I thought about this, I had decided that light goes slower through dense objects because its being absorbed and re-emitted over and over, instead of just passing cleanly through. I'm not committed to this idea, though.
the idea i have about the invisible clouds of ... well, strange electrons, being the mediator of the effect of gravity, they have mass, so it is entirely possible that our measure of light speed is completely wrong with regard to intergalactic space (the voids between galaxies). it is possible that light speed is WAY faster out there.
this is probably how we can see so far at all, since most of the space between is so "thin" that actually our estimate of distance is also wrong.
Anti-Matter / Dark Matter 🤔?
If a photon has no mass, then how could gravity affect it?
that's the thing, photons don't have mass. neither do electrons. or at least, not normally. EM drive experiments suggest that there may actually be a way to make electrons into some configuration where they have mass because they were able to bump a pendulum with the beam from one that was in vacuum, where there could not have been mechanical transference force, or any other particle but the electrons emitting from the resonator.
it was the em drive that started me on the idea that gravity is in fact mediated by clouds of these special configurations of electrons. and so they would also distort the velocity of photons as well.
the idea that intergalactic space might mean light speed is orders of magnitude faster than we observe here, throws a monkey wrench into the works of estimating the size of the universe. you CANNOT measure distance without triangulation or firing a projectile into the distance and measuring the time. and even then, even at the ranges that snipers shoot, the bullet path, and velocity, and air resistance is affected so much that at the longer distances it's likely to not even be the time you estimate because you assumed uniformity of conditions over the flight path.
same thing would apply to light, i think, since gravity changes the velocity.
I think electrons have always had mass. Its just tiny. I think there's a 6 and a negative exponent involved, but I ain't gonna look it up.
But I'm reminded of old questions... **_Why_** do electrons move further out from the nucleus when they absorb a photon? The books stated that they did, but didn't state why. And what if the whole wavelength isn't absorbed? Is there partial absorption? Does the remaining EM field perturbate at slower rate?
Idk. I pissed off my physics professors.
we can be fairly certain about distances when we can measure them by parallax, to triangulate them, but at a certain distance the parallax differential is not even computable (think like doing math with numbers that require exabytes to represent the precision). let alone the device measuring the angle, that's probably way more limited.
so, how do you anyway decide how far away something is just by the light it sends back to you, if you don't have parallax? the motion of the objects would serve to help bring some ratio to it but even that would fade to zero beyond a few galaxies deep.
this whole train of thought has totally broken my brain though. since we know that light travels slower the more matter is near it, the speed of light MUST be higher between galaxies.
that would eliminate my space expansion idea tho, because the space expansion model would imply there has to be an event horizon below which all incoming light would slow to basically stop.
so i am probably going to rethink this theory.
we know little really 👽
