Posted on 12/06/2017 11:31:18 AM PST by Red Badger
In order for us to receive light that originated 13.0 billion years ago. We have to be 13.0 billion light years from where that object was 13.0 billion years ago. True statement?
So if the galaxy speed is 0 then the entire distance is due to either inflation or the initial distance between the objects at the big bang.
And if the universe was small at the big bang. Say 1 billion light years wide. Then inflation must acccount for 12 billion light years of distance in 13.0 billion light years for us to be in position to receive the light. That means inflation is a high percent of the speed of light
SagA* is our black hole.
They have a observed model of the star movement in the center of our galaxy showing there is a large mass there
16 years of observation...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=duoHtJpo4GY
Should be an update to it by now
Substitute “expansion” for “inflation” and you’re basically correct. “Inflation” is a term reserved for a particular theory of the early universe. But your last statement “inflation is a high percent of the speed of light” needs some correction. The speed of expansion is proportional with distance. It’s called the Hubble Constant, or Hubble Parameter. It’s estimated to be about 70 kps for every million parsecs, or 3.26 million light years. So at a distance of about 14 billion light years, expansion exceeds to the speed of light. We can’t see beyond that, obviously, which defines the visible horizon.
I'm familiar with those observations. Yes, there are stars at the center of our galaxy circling something, but what that something is, has only been guessed at. No object has been observed - only inferred.
It's not that modern cosmologists don't observe the various phenomena in the cosmos. They absolutely do, but they're relying on a dogmatic, hundred year old paradigm to explain those observations, which it cannot do.
As a consequence, they're forced to dream up ever more ludicrous wierdness to explain what they see. At some point they're going to have to question the validity of their underlying theories. They're not working, and haven't been for decades.
LOL
Well, that makes us two peas in a cosmic pod then.
Dogma? No, they are relying on Gravity.
The weak force. It's sad, really.
Sad?
It is how we have found many objects -such as planets in space.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
My comment was more directed at cosmologists' and astrophysicists' reliance on the force of gravity to explain everything in the universe.
It's more faith than science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.