The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.

wrote:
The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.


We see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago.

wrote in message
ups.com...
| The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
| moving.


And your proof of this utter bull**** is what, ****wit?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jiH_g.113773$aJ.37349@attbi_s21...
wrote:
The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.


We see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago.

Which Andromeda would a traveler travel to? Observed, or unobserved? "As
it was . . . " or as it is, rather as it would be after a voyage of two
weeks say, by ship's clock, from Earth? Hypothetically, using the speed of
light, c, as the agency of information transmission, when would an observer
on Earth observe his arrival at Andromeda? And how old would he observe the
traveler to be upon that arrival?

Hypothetically, the traveler's destination was a star and planet on the
outskirts of Andromeda between Andromeda and the Milky Way. He arrives after
a two week voyage from Earth. Two weeks by his ship's clock. He observes the
Milky Way "as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago." Presuming he lives that
long and stays where he is, when would he observe his departure from Earth?
Hypothetically speaking of course.

The traveler observed "the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million
years ago" while on Earth. At a quarter of the distance to it in his travel,
what "million years ago" does he observe for it? What "million years ago" at
the half way point to it? What "million years ago" at the three quarter
point to it?

At a quarter of the distance to Andromeda, what "million years ago" for
the Milky Way behind does he observe? What "million years ago" at the half
way point? What "million years ago" at the three quarter point? Since at the
finish at Andromeda he sees the Milky Way distantly "as it was 2.3-2.5
million years ago."

Presuming the above possible, did he travel faster than the speed of
light? My answer would be "No way did he travel faster than the speed of
light!" Can you think of, or at least guess, why?

Of course you did once tell me "there is no evidence for more than one
universe" (presumably the 'observable universe'). So presumably there would
be no such thing as unobserved, or unobservable, universes 'offset in
time' -- GLB. Therefore, no such as an Andromeda 'offset forward in time'.
And no such thing as a traveler traveling to some non-existent one 'offset
forward in time'. Therefore the traveler would of course have to travel the
observed universe to the observed Andromeda and arrive to it "2.3-2.5
million years ago." Plus observe a distant Milky Way not "2.3-2.5 million
years ago," but a Milky Way 2.3-2.5 million years in the future of where he
is (Andromeda). In other words, as it is now, regardless that the
observation, the seeing, is from that distance, across that distance.
Meaning something like no matter where he is his eyes are always, I repeat
always, quantum entangled with Earth [now]. No space between. No time
between. The arrowhead of time is always pointing to the Earth, and the
traveler in traveling the other way only travels down the arrow to the butt
or back end of time, while seeing up the arrow of time to the only head
there is in the Universe, Earth here and now (the Milky Way here and now).

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jiH_g.113773$aJ.37349@attbi_s21...
wrote:
The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.


We see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago.

Which Andromeda would a traveler travel to? Observed, or unobserved? "As
it was . . . " or as it is, rather as it would be after a voyage of two
weeks say, by ship's clock, from Earth? Hypothetically, using the speed of
light, c, as the agency of information transmission, when would an
observer on Earth observe his arrival at Andromeda? And how old would he
observe the traveler to be upon that arrival?

Hypothetically, the traveler's destination was a star and planet on the
outskirts of Andromeda between Andromeda and the Milky Way. He arrives
after a two week voyage from Earth. Two weeks by his ship's clock. He
observes the Milky Way "as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago." Presuming he
lives that long and stays where he is, when would he observe his departure
from Earth? Hypothetically speaking of course.

The traveler observed "the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million
years ago" while on Earth. At a quarter of the distance to it in his
travel, what "million years ago" does he observe for it? What "million
years ago" at the half way point to it? What "million years ago" at the
three quarter point to it?

At a quarter of the distance to Andromeda, what "million years ago" for
the Milky Way behind does he observe? What "million years ago" at the half
way point? What "million years ago" at the three quarter point? Since at
the finish at Andromeda he sees the Milky Way distantly "as it was 2.3-2.5
million years ago."

Presuming the above possible, did he travel faster than the speed of
light? My answer would be "No way did he travel faster than the speed of
light!" Can you think of, or at least guess, why?

Of course you did once tell me "there is no evidence for more than one
universe" (presumably the 'observable universe'). So presumably there
would be no such thing as unobserved, or unobservable, universes 'offset
in time' -- GLB. Therefore, no such as an Andromeda 'offset forward in
time'. And no such thing as a traveler traveling to some non-existent one
'offset forward in time'. Therefore the traveler would of course have to
travel the observed universe to the observed Andromeda and arrive to it
"2.3-2.5 million years ago." Plus observe a distant Milky Way not "2.3-2.5
million years ago," but a Milky Way 2.3-2.5 million years in the future of
where he is (Andromeda). In other words, as it is now, regardless that the
observation, the seeing, is from that distance, across that distance.
Meaning something like no matter where he is his eyes are always, I repeat
always, quantum entangled with Earth [now]. No space between. No time
between. The arrowhead of time is always pointing to the Earth, and the
traveler in traveling the other way only travels down the arrow to the
butt or back end of time, while seeing up the arrow of time to the only
head there is in the Universe, Earth here and now (the Milky Way here and
now).

GLB

Excuse me, 'offset in space and time', not 'offset in time'. Didn't mean
to cut out the space of the time.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jiH_g.113773$aJ.37349@attbi_s21...
wrote:
The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.

We see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago.

Which Andromeda would a traveler travel to? Observed, or unobserved? "As
it was . . . " or as it is, rather as it would be after a voyage of two
weeks say, by ship's clock, from Earth? Hypothetically, using the speed of
light, c, as the agency of information transmission, when would an observer
on Earth observe his arrival at Andromeda? And how old would he observe the
traveler to be upon that arrival?

Hypothetically, the traveler's destination was a star and planet on the
outskirts of Andromeda between Andromeda and the Milky Way. He arrives after
a two week voyage from Earth. Two weeks by his ship's clock. He observes the
Milky Way "as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago." Presuming he lives that
long and stays where he is, when would he observe his departure from Earth?
Hypothetically speaking of course.

The traveler observed "the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million
years ago" while on Earth. At a quarter of the distance to it in his travel,
what "million years ago" does he observe for it? What "million years ago" at
the half way point to it? What "million years ago" at the three quarter
point to it?

At a quarter of the distance to Andromeda, what "million years ago" for
the Milky Way behind does he observe? What "million years ago" at the half
way point? What "million years ago" at the three quarter point? Since at the
finish at Andromeda he sees the Milky Way distantly "as it was 2.3-2.5
million years ago."

Presuming the above possible, did he travel faster than the speed of
light? My answer would be "No way did he travel faster than the speed of
light!" Can you think of, or at least guess, why?

Of course you did once tell me "there is no evidence for more than one
universe" (presumably the 'observable universe'). So presumably there would
be no such thing as unobserved, or unobservable, universes 'offset in
time' -- GLB. Therefore, no such as an Andromeda 'offset forward in time'.
And no such thing as a traveler traveling to some non-existent one 'offset
forward in time'. Therefore the traveler would of course have to travel the
observed universe to the observed Andromeda and arrive to it "2.3-2.5
million years ago." Plus observe a distant Milky Way not "2.3-2.5 million
years ago," but a Milky Way 2.3-2.5 million years in the future of where he
is (Andromeda). In other words, as it is now, regardless that the
observation, the seeing, is from that distance, across that distance.
Meaning something like no matter where he is his eyes are always, I repeat
always, quantum entangled with Earth [now]. No space between. No time
between. The arrowhead of time is always pointing to the Earth, and the
traveler in traveling the other way only travels down the arrow to the butt
or back end of time, while seeing up the arrow of time to the only head
there is in the Universe, Earth here and now (the Milky Way here and now).

GLB



Other than the fuel, G-forces and collision problems of close to light
speed travel, going to Andromeda in two weeks (from the perspective of
the space traveler) is perfectly valid.

What the Earth bound observer sees is much different. The laws of
physics hold for each observer. Are you familiar with special relativity?
There are many excellent texts.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ial-relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...ral-relativity

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:6BJ%g.117179$aJ.45783@attbi_s21...
G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:jiH_g.113773$aJ.37349@attbi_s21...
wrote:
The expansion of the universe is merely space expanding, not objects
moving. Since the space in between everything is growing, it only
appears that objects are surpassing the speed of light. Therefore, if
we looked back into a very distant galaxy, we actually may be seeing
Andromeda before it was at its current state etc. At least this is
according to my understanding.

We see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago.

Which Andromeda would a traveler travel to? Observed, or unobserved?
"As it was . . . " or as it is, rather as it would be after a voyage of
two weeks say, by ship's clock, from Earth? Hypothetically, using the
speed of light, c, as the agency of information transmission, when would
an observer on Earth observe his arrival at Andromeda? And how old would
he observe the traveler to be upon that arrival?

Hypothetically, the traveler's destination was a star and planet on the
outskirts of Andromeda between Andromeda and the Milky Way. He arrives
after a two week voyage from Earth. Two weeks by his ship's clock. He
observes the Milky Way "as it was 2.3-2.5 million years ago." Presuming
he lives that long and stays where he is, when would he observe his
departure from Earth? Hypothetically speaking of course.

The traveler observed "the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million
years ago" while on Earth. At a quarter of the distance to it in his
travel, what "million years ago" does he observe for it? What "million
years ago" at the half way point to it? What "million years ago" at the
three quarter point to it?

At a quarter of the distance to Andromeda, what "million years ago" for
the Milky Way behind does he observe? What "million years ago" at the
half way point? What "million years ago" at the three quarter point?
Since at the finish at Andromeda he sees the Milky Way distantly "as it
was 2.3-2.5 million years ago."

Presuming the above possible, did he travel faster than the speed of
light? My answer would be "No way did he travel faster than the speed of
light!" Can you think of, or at least guess, why?

Of course you did once tell me "there is no evidence for more than one
universe" (presumably the 'observable universe'). So presumably there
would be no such thing as unobserved, or unobservable, universes 'offset
in time' -- GLB. Therefore, no such as an Andromeda 'offset forward in
time'. And no such thing as a traveler traveling to some non-existent one
'offset forward in time'. Therefore the traveler would of course have to
travel the observed universe to the observed Andromeda and arrive to it
"2.3-2.5 million years ago." Plus observe a distant Milky Way not
"2.3-2.5 million years ago," but a Milky Way 2.3-2.5 million years in the
future of where he is (Andromeda). In other words, as it is now,
regardless that the observation, the seeing, is from that distance,
across that distance. Meaning something like no matter where he is his
eyes are always, I repeat always, quantum entangled with Earth [now]. No
space between. No time between. The arrowhead of time is always pointing
to the Earth, and the traveler in traveling the other way only travels
down the arrow to the butt or back end of time, while seeing up the arrow
of time to the only head there is in the Universe, Earth here and now
(the Milky Way here and now).

GLB

Other than the fuel, G-forces and collision problems of close to light
speed travel, going to Andromeda in two weeks (from the perspective of
the space traveler) is perfectly valid.

What the Earth bound observer sees is much different. The laws of
physics hold for each observer. Are you familiar with special
relativity?
There are many excellent texts.

Not getting away with that. Why would the Earth observer have to wait
2.3-2.5 million years, and two weeks, to observe arrival of traveler at
Andromeda? obviously the "and two weeks" speaks to the voyage not having
been faster than the speed of light as far as the Earth observer is
concerned. Ergo, also as far as the traveler is concerned who started out
with the Earth observer's view of Andromeda, watched 2.3-2.5 million years,
and two weeks, pass on his way to Andromeda, a distance of 2.3-2.5 million
light years. "And two weeks" means a voyage at less than the speed of light.
Actually about 300,000 kps less than the speed of light (call it warp
effect, wormhole effect, hyperspace-time travel, whatever you please but no
traveler ever really gets away from measuring the speed of light in a vacuum
at less or more than 300,000 kps relative to his own frame of reference).
What he sees behind him of the Milky Way galaxy falling behind him in space
and in time is a whole different story. It falls behind him in space and
time until it is 2.3-2.5 million years behind him, or "ago" (2.3-2.5 million
light years away from him).

Andromeda's observer must at all times of this scenario see the Milky Way
galaxy to be 2.3-2.5 million light years away or "as it was 2.3-2.5 million
years ago." And the traveler upon joining him must see exactly the same
thing he sees, just as prior to his leaving Earth he must see exactly the
same thing the Earth observer sees of Andromeda. Thus he "sees" a Milky Way
galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5 million years before he left it, less two weeks of
course. Just as the Earth observer would have to wait 2.3-2.5 million years,
and two weeks, to see the traveler arrive at Andromeda, a traveler the Earth
observer would observe to be two weeks older than when he left Earth
regardless of a couple of million years plus having passed in the
intervening time for the Earth observer, the Andromeda observer would have
to wait 2.3-2.5 million years, less two weeks, to observe the traveler's
leaving Earth (a couple of million years plus after the traveler's arrival
in his vicinity).

All of the observers, including the traveler, deal in light speed
transmitted information. Also, all of them deal in the wavelengths and
frequencies of light for the time, the timing, involved. These two of course
fix the constant to remain constant for each and every observer, including
the traveler. The two bound observers will deal in opposed variables with
regard to observation of the traveler, one each. The traveler will deal in
the same two opposed variables, one forward of him wrt Andromeda (thus that
observer), one rearward wrt to the Milky Way (thus that observer).

I've got this down so pat I could do it in my sleep. You and yours, Sam,
should have married the time slowing frame scenario to the faster than light
frame scenario long ago (The slowed down to the speeded up, long ago). The
only missing factor keeping you from doing it was not realizing the
unobserved universe offset in space in time from the observed universe (0 -
1 + 1 = 0, 0 = 0). It's no violation of causality when the traveler is
already level with a past ("we see the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.3-2.5
million years ago") of his destination in the distance, thus having to
travel a future path arrow of time -- pointed the other way along the light
road -- to reach an unobserved (unobservable from point of origin)
destination's 'now'.

The traveler must always gain the destination's point of view, in the
doing of that (concurrently) losing his point of origin's point of view. He
will gain relativity to his destination and lose relativity to his point of
origin, parallel sequentially. He will speed up in time forward, and speed
down in time rearward, exactly balancing the two precisely opposed natures
in his own frame.

Relativity was never about the reality of the situation, except the
reality of observers' observations. Relativity was always about the false
reality of the situation. But, Sam, that false reality of the situation is
true for the observer. The physics of Special Relativity are about what the
observer observes to be true, not what is true. There are seven billion
observers on this planet alone who deal in this false reality being true to
them every second of their waking lives. That doesn't include all the rest
of life on this planet that does the same. Per evolution, they compensate
with almost no realization of any compensating being done until Albert
Einstein became aware of the real situation and explained the false reality.
But most humans being what they are, practically no one understood it as
being true false reality. They looked, they still look, upon it as being
about strictly true reality rather than true false reality. Good old Al
opened a can of worms almost impossible for 99.999% of humans to get in
focus. It wasn't trust in common sense that had to discarded, it was an
absolute trust in everything, literally everything, we see ("observe") that
had to be discarded. Luckily we're made by nature perceivers as well as
observers and they work in tandem harness unrealized as being a tandem.

But it was ill luck for physicists. Special Relativity can have nothing to
do with any 'perception' of reality. It must be singularly caught between
the proverbial rock and a hard place, else leave a hole, a void, in physics.
False reality has real physics and physicists must deal in physics as is.
Special Relativity is all about the most hellishly subtly insidious real
physics ever devised by the Universe, false reality. What could possibly
cause the Universe to have any reality of 'false reality'? Why? Why for?
Because life could not possibly exist in the Universe without its presence
in the Universe. That's why. Therefore any other possible why need not even
exist.

Most of the Universe is cloaked, is hidden, inside false realities known
as "horizons." The bottom-line result of horizons existing is the very
existence of "finite." No false reality horizons, no relative reality of
'finite'. An infinite Universe may exist but only 'finite' could ever
animate and enliven it. Give the Unverse just one curve, just one turn or
metric (L: uni-vers(um)), ever so slight it might be, horizon will then
exist. Finite will then exist.

GLB