Comoving distance- light travel distance

[Weitter Duckss 34]

To change, I open a discussion without an article written (yet).

How does the 3.05 Gly difference (Table 1) come about?

I

Redshift	7.085±0.003
Distance	28.85 Gly (8.85 Gpc) (co-moving)  12.9 Gly (4.0 Gpc) (light travel distance

II

ULAS J1120+0641
(at a comoving distance of 28.85 billion light-years) was the first quasar discovered beyond a redshift of 7.
UDFj-39546284
Subsequently it was reported (December 2012) to possibly be at a record-breaking redshift z = 11.9 using Hubble and Spitzer telescope data, including Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF).
UDFy-38135539
The light travel distance of the light that we observe from UDFy-38135539 (HUF.YD3) is more than 4 billion parsecs (13.1 billion light years), and it has a luminosity distance of 86.9 billion parsecs (about 283 billion light years).
EGS-zs8-1
The galaxy has a comoving distance (light travel distance multiplied by the Hubble constant, caused by the metric expansion of space) of about 30 billion light years from Earth.
Z8 GND 5296
Due to the expansion of the universe, this position is now at about 30 billion light-years (9.2 Gpc) (comoving distance) from Earth.
Q0906 + 6930
But since this galaxy is receding from Earth at an estimated rate of 285,803 km/s[1] (the speed of light is 299,792 km/s), the present (co-moving) distance to this galaxy is estimated to be around 26 billion light-years (7961 Mpc).
GN-108036
The redshift was z = 7.2, meaning the light of the galaxy took 12.9 billion years to reach Earth and therefore its formation dates back to 750 million years after the Big Bang . Redshift z=7.213

III

Galaxy	Right ascension	Declination	Red shift	Distance G ly
HCM-6A	02h 39m 54.7s	−01° 33′ 32″	6,56	12,8
SXDF-NB1006-2	02h 18m 56.5s	−05° 19′ 58.9″	7,215	13,07
TN J0924-2201	09 h  24 m  19,92 s	-22 ° 01 '41,5 "	5,19	12,523
UDFy-38135539	03h 32m 38.13s	−27° 45′ 53.9″	8,6	13,1
A2744 YD4	00h 14m 24.927s	−30° 22′ 56.15″	8,38	13,2
BDF-3299	22h 28m 12.26s	−35° 09′ 59.4″	7,109	13,05
SSA22−HCM1	22h 17m 39.69s	+00° 13′ 48.6″	5,47	12,7
EQ J100054+023435	10h 00m 54.52s	+2° 34′ 35.17″	4,547	12,2
ULAS J1120+0641	11h 20m 01.48s	+06° 41′ 24.3″	7,085	13,05
ULAS J1342 + 0928	13h 42m 08.10s	+13h 42m 08.10s	7,54	13,1
GRB 090423	09h 55m 33.08s	+18° 08′ 58.9″	8,2	13
IOK-1	13h 23m 59.8s	+27° 24′ 56″	6,96	12,88
A1703 zD6	13 h 15 m 01.0 s	+51° 50′ 04′	7,054	13,04
Q0906 + 6930	09h 06m 30.75s	+69° 30′ 30.8″	5,47	12,3
MACS0647-JD	06h 47m 55.73s	+70° 14′ 35.8″	10,7	13,3

IV

V

 

...

[Weitter Duckss 34]

The question is simple.
Light travels 300,000 km / s, matter travels max. 299,792 km / s (or that's the rate of expansion of the Universe).
12.9 + <12.9 cannot give 28.85.

What travels faster than light, light, expansion, or is something wrong?

[joc 13,813]

There is something wrong...but you are seeking answers for your the uh...  problem   ...in the wrong place.....

[Weitter Duckss 34]

I'm looking for answers in the right place. This forum has a lot of masters in astrophysics. True, they do not turn on gladly.

Today, everyone can find information from this and any other topic using the Internet.

I am interested in deviations or pearls of the mainstream science.

„Proper distance roughly corresponds to where a distant object would be at a specific moment of cosmological time, which can change over time due to the expansion of the universe. Comoving distance factors out the expansion of the universe, which gives a distance that does not change in time due to the expansion of space (though this may change due to other, local factors, such as the motion of a galaxy within a cluster); the comoving distance is the proper distance at the present time.“

We have a claim ("proof") that the universe is old (all together) 13.88 Gly (Big Bang "science"). It is also max. diameter of the Universe. There is nothing beyond that.

Now we have information about: 30 to about 283 billion light years (UDFy-38135539).

Have any of the forumers thought about it?

[ChrLzs 17,096]

Maybe read a book on Basic Relativity?

Maybe also read a book on the Scientific Method.  Pay particular note to the sections on "how to define the problem".  That way you will avoid posting stuff that includes no problem (other than your lack of understanding of the basics).

 

Let me put this another way....

Posting lengthy tables and silly, un-annotated drawings, without a simply stated one-line explanation of what your basic problem is..... just wastes your time and ours.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

No splitters, we're in the forum.

You want to say that the Basic Relativity allows speeds several times greater than the speed of light

(„UDFy-38135539
The light travel distance of the light that we observe from UDFy-38135539 (HUF.YD3) is more than 4 billion parsecs (13.1 billion light years), and it has a luminosity distance of 86.9 billion parsecs (about 283 billion light years).“ 20 x speed of light).

„The proper distance for a redshift of 8.2 would be about 9.2 Gpc,^[69] or about 30 billion light-years.“

Please quote.

There is a problem:

- radiation travels 300,000 km / s,

- the expansion of the Universe is (suppose, though always lower) 300,000km / s (if it is going in the opposite (not the same T) direction (The attached table shows that the same value in all directions in a volume of the Universe),

- 12.9 + <12.9 = 28.85 Gly? (from the example ULAS J1120+0641).

Figure IV is a representation of the Universe at a (so-called) zero point when the Universe begins to brighten (when the rays start). and volume of the Universe after 13.8 Gly.

Figure V in points 1 to 4 shows the position of the Earth or the Milky Way in this universe within the first 300-400 thousand years.

Reason: Indicating that the entire framework (mainstream) is within these baselines, there are no others.

If there are please quotes.

[ChrLzs 17,096]

More gibberish - the best I can determine is that you haven't a clue about the fact that the expansion of the Universe (which IS the space time continuum) DOES cause 'relative' speeds for objects that are receding (at huge distances) to be effectively beyond light speed.  Einstein covered this and it is well-known....

 

That's not rocket science (oh wait, yes, I guess it sorta is!  ).  For heaven's sake stop obsessing about tables and do a basic course on this stuff.  Is anyone ELSE confused, or perhaps have an insight into what Weitter's problem is, if it's not that?

[Rlyeh 14,491]

On 11/20/2019 at 4:56 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

The question is simple.
Light travels 300,000 km / s, matter travels max. 299,792 km / s (or that's the rate of expansion of the Universe).
12.9 + <12.9 cannot give 28.85.

What travels faster than light, light, expansion, or is something wrong?

I thought you said there is no light in space?

[psyche101 33,185]

On 11/20/2019 at 4:26 PM, Weitter Duckss said:

The question is simple.
Light travels 300,000 km / s, matter travels max. 299,792 km / s (or that's the rate of expansion of the Universe).
12.9 + <12.9 cannot give 28.85.

What travels faster than light, light, expansion, or is something wrong?

Is this what you are talking about? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity

[Weitter Duckss 34]

@ ChrLzs 

„The term "protogalaxy" itself is generally accepted to mean "Progenitors of the present day (normal) galaxies, in the early stages of formation.”. 

The age of universe is (Wikipedia,  arXiv:1502.01589 ) 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

„The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago with a fixed amount of energy and matter that has become less dense as the Universe has expanded. ..
when the temperature was around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. As photons did not interact with these electrically neutral atoms, the former began to travel freely through space, resulting in the decoupling of matter and radiation.

„The speed of light in a vacuum is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.“ 

As well as

„One interpretation of this effect is the idea that space itself is expanding. Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×10⁸ m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light“ 

If an emission of light happened 13,39 light-years ago  (GN-z11 13,39 bn ly (billion light years), EGSY8p7 13,23 bn. ly, GRB 090423 13,18 bn ly, etc.“), one could ask: did light travel at all through these 13,39 bilion ly, since we can see it now?

Photo by ESA and COBE

From: https://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#Where-is-the-truth-about-Big-Bang-theory

 

@ Rlyeh

And it doesn't exist. I use termim light for radiation (I have stated this several times).

 

@ psyche101 

It does not solve the problem. See:

Redshift may be wrong? Evidence debunking redshift? Red face Shift?www.everythingselectric.com

[Rlyeh 14,491]

43 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

@ Rlyeh

And it doesn't exist. I use termim light for radiation (I have stated this several times).

Speed of light in a vacuum implies light does exist in space.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

If this were true, the Universe would be bright instead of dark.

There is only the speed of the waves (radiation).

We have already discussed this topic here.

 

"4. When Does Light Appear?
A space outside the visible matter is dark. There is no light just outside the atmosphere of Sun. There is no light outside the atmosphere of Earth and off the surface of Moon. Light does not travel through space. There is a total darkness between Sun and Earth, just as between Sun and any other form of visible matter.

Figure 23. the Moon and the Earth Apollo 8; Sun;  Pluto and Charon moon; stars look like from outer space of the Dawn spacecraft; NASA

There is no light just outside the more important part of the atmosphere of Earth. Light appears only on the visible matter."

[Rlyeh 14,491]

On 11/22/2019 at 1:55 AM, Weitter Duckss said:

If this were true, the Universe would be bright instead of dark.

There is only the speed of the waves (radiation).

We have already discussed this topic here.

No it wouldn't, you've been corrected before.

Light is radiation and is detected when it enters a sensor.  Darkness only means no light has reached the sensor.

You still haven't worked out that your images require light travelling through space to reach the camera. 

[Weitter Duckss 34]

27 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No it wouldn't, you've been corrected before.

Light is radiation and is detected when it enters a sensor.  Darkness only means no light has reached the sensor.

You still haven't worked out that your images require light travelling through space to reach the camera. 

The sensor cannot register light because the space is dark without the presence of light. If there was light space would be bright. Light appears on the place of collision between radiation waves and particles.

Picture: ESA, COBE (my compilation)

This (my) compilation reveals that (z) can grow infinitely or to the limit when it cannot register because the waves are extinguished (disappear due to the distance traveled and collision with matter of space).

[Manwon Lender 2,964]

On 11/21/2019 at 4:03 PM, ChrLzs said:

More gibberish - the best I can determine is that you haven't a clue about the fact that the expansion of the Universe (which IS the space time continuum) DOES cause 'relative' speeds for objects that are receding (at huge distances) to be effectively beyond light speed.  Einstein covered this and it is well-known....

 

That's not rocket science (oh wait, yes, I guess it sorta is!  ).  For heaven's sake stop obsessing about tables and do a basic course on this stuff.  Is anyone ELSE confused, or perhaps have an insight into what Weitter's problem is, if it's not that?

Please give me a link to where Einsteins theories state that objects can move faster than light. Is it in the basic theory of relativity or the Special theory of relativity.

please send me a link to the information, thanks

[Rlyeh 14,491]

1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The sensor cannot register light because the space is dark without the presence of light.

No, light is not entering the sensor and why space appears dark.

If someone shoots at you with a gun and misses, the bullet still exists.  Same with light.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

No, light is not entering the sensor and why space appears dark.

If someone shoots at you with a gun and misses, the bullet still exists.  Same with light.

Not the same. There is a big difference between wave propagation and bullet trajectory. Here we see that light does not bounce above the surface of the body without the atmosphere. There is a surface to which directly the darkness rests. There is no atmosphere to make the transition.

Visible light has its interval

„A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 380 to 740 nanometers.“

which covers the space between atmosfra Earth and the Sun (that space is completely dark). So without matter the value, the wave does not light unless there is matter. The weakening of the intensity of the wave decreases the value of light on the body (Pluto ..).

[Rlyeh 14,491]

28 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Not the same. There is a big difference between wave propagation and bullet trajectory. Here we see that light does not bounce above the surface of the body without the atmosphere. There is a surface to which directly the darkness rests. There is no atmosphere to make the transition.

Complete nonsense.  Light bounces off the moon, travels through space and enters your eye.

 

[Weitter Duckss 34]

24 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Complete nonsense.  Light bounces off the moon, travels through space and enters your eye.

 

However, you must see that no light is reflected from the surface of the Moon, because just above the surface is complete darkness.
You also have to see that the reflected waves are less intense and give less light on Earth.

 

[Rlyeh 14,491]

51 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

However, you must see that no light is reflected from the surface of the Moon, because just above the surface is complete darkness.
You also have to see that the reflected waves are less intense and give less light on Earth.

 

Light bounces off the moon, travels through space and enters your eye.

[Weitter Duckss 34]

14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Light bounces off the moon, travels through space and enters your eye.

It's cloudy here.

Waves travel with the Moon and in confrontation with the atmosphere (particles) produce light. Between the moon and Earth there is no light, it's dark. The eye receives the product of the collision of waves and particles.

If there is more or less matter between Earth and the Moon, the intensity of light is greater or less (or Earth and Sun). The same goes for reducing the intensity of the waves coming to Pluto.

„Mean Solar Irradiance (W/m2) on Mercury is 9.116,4, Earth  1.366,1, Jupiter 50,5, na Pluto 0,878.“

Matter in space acts to reduce the intensity of waves with distance traveled.

[Rlyeh 14,491]

47 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

It's cloudy here.

Waves travel with the Moon and in confrontation with the atmosphere (particles) produce light. Between the moon and Earth there is no light, it's dark. The eye receives the product of the collision of waves and particles.

If there is more or less matter between Earth and the Moon, the intensity of light is greater or less (or Earth and Sun). The same goes for reducing the intensity of the waves coming to Pluto.

„Mean Solar Irradiance (W/m2) on Mercury is 9.116,4, Earth  1.366,1, Jupiter 50,5, na Pluto 0,878.“

Matter in space acts to reduce the intensity of waves with distance traveled.

No the moon does not produce light.

Read slowly, light travels from the sun in all directions.  Some of this light hits the moon and is reflected, some of this reflected light travels to earth and is captured by cameras and our eyes.

Even your sources state light travels in space.  

[Weitter Duckss 34]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

No the moon does not produce light.

Read slowly, light travels from the sun in all directions.  Some of this light hits the moon and is reflected, some of this reflected light travels to earth and is captured by cameras and our eyes.

Even your sources state light travels in space.  

OK. It only remains. to show me the evidence of that claim. In particular, that you need to explain the claim that space is bright. because "light travels from the sun in all directions." and that they remained blind because they see the darkness.

"Light travels to the earth and is captured by cameras and our eyes." I attached a few pictures that prove the contrary, space is dark. The dark space = no light.

http://mentalfloss.com/uk/space/26659/why-is-it-so-dark-in-outer-space

„They all have one thing in common: beyond the lights of the space craft, and aside from the faint needlepoint glow of distant stars, space is oil-slick dark.

Why that should be so is a question scientists have been asking for more than 400 years. Everyone from Johannes Kepler to Edmond Halley had a go at trying to figure it out. But it was German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers who gave his name to the paradox of the dark sky. Olbers wondered if the universe is infinite, and there are an infinite number of infinitely old stars, why the light from those stars isn't visible from Earth. If it were, the night sky would be bright, not dark.“

[ChrLzs 17,096]

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Please give me a link to where Einsteins theories state that objects can move faster than light. Is it in the basic theory of relativity or the Special theory of relativity.

please send me a link to the information, thanks

Hi, Manwon.   It probably isn't explicitly stated, but his theories do cover this.  It's a bit beyond a short coverage, but you could start here.  At about halfway down it covers this - look for the words:

Quote

When it was just one year old, the observable Universe was nearly 100,000 light years in size. When it was one second old, it was already more than 10 light years in size. That sure does sound like expanding faster than light, doesn’t it? But at no point did any particle move faster than light relative to any other particle that it interacted with.

It's complicated.  Weitter is not exactly 'there' yet (but he likes tables and conflating non-comparable data...).

Edited November 24 by ChrLzs

[Manwon Lender 2,964]

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Hi, Manwon.   It probably isn't explicitly stated, but his theories do cover this.  It's a bit beyond a short coverage, but you could start here.  At about halfway down it covers this - look for the words:

It's complicated.  Weitter is not exactly 'there' yet (but he likes tables and conflating non-comparable data...).

In Einsteins theory of relativity it states that the only way to travel fast than light is in a vacuum. He also talks about how the expanding edge of the Big Bang would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Take Care Chrlzs