- #1
CONANGIB
- 1
- 0
When you look at a bird in a tree with binoculars, that is not the bird as it exists at the moment but the bird that was there before the light traveled to the scope, which for practical purposes is the bird. You can shoot the bird of before, and it will fall to the ground.
However, when you look at a distant object in a larger telescope, you are looking only further into the past. And we describe our existence and our history from that observation. Yet looking at the most massive galaxy in the known universe, it could in all probability not be there at the moment you look at it. You are looking only at where it was at the time when the light started moving toward the observer. So we are not describing the universe but what use to be in a particular area. How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past. And the larger question, why don’t physicist talk more about this?
However, when you look at a distant object in a larger telescope, you are looking only further into the past. And we describe our existence and our history from that observation. Yet looking at the most massive galaxy in the known universe, it could in all probability not be there at the moment you look at it. You are looking only at where it was at the time when the light started moving toward the observer. So we are not describing the universe but what use to be in a particular area. How can we say this is this, and make these calculations and theories when we should understand we are looking only at something in the past. And the larger question, why don’t physicist talk more about this?