Is the H.U.D.F. view in excess of 13 bly's. or not.
Thread starterPeter Watkins
Start date
In summary, N.A.S.A. has stated that the Hubble Ultra Deep Field view takes us within 800 million years of the Big Bang, with the possibility of seeing objects within 400 million years, indicating that the most distant objects seen in the HUDF view are at a distance of approximately 13 billion light years from us. This suggests that we are looking at this region as it was over 13 billion years ago when the light from these objects first began its journey towards us.
Peter, please provide a reference, or propose an experiment, that affirms or refutes your hypothesis. At the moment, I perceive it as a backdoor ATM argument.
#38
Peter Watkins
111
0
Not quite sure how to respond to this. As far as I can tell, all observed phenomena are taken account of; the fact that, (virtually), all galaxies are moving apart at a rate that increases with distance, (whilst clusters and super-clusters are still forming), and that this rate is increasing, the fact that the C.M.B.R. is arriving from all directions and not from what might be described as a single point of origin, and, (and you may well argue this point), the fact that some four decades of study did not produce a universally accepted Hubble constant. Different directions of view produced different rates of recession.
Last edited:
#39
Peter Watkins
111
0
Cont., These replies sometimes disappear before posting hence the two parts. Additionally it explains why the, (visible to us), universe can be seen to have been at least 24 billion light years across, 12 billion years ago, (we can see 12 billion light years in most, though not all, directions). Also, Quasars are widely accepted as being the forerunners of stable galaxies, and hence should be the most distant objects, but they are not. It also explains the most distant objects seen in the H.U.D.F. and why these are close together and exhibiting red-shift at an exponential rate, whilst what we see in the opposite direction are huge voids with galaxies "strung out" resembling strings of beads. What also become self-evident, if you follow the reasoning, is our origin and what the event was that led to the circumstance that resulted in the big bang. I dare say that there is more stuff but I've been trying to rid my brain of this wretched universe. I could describe the thought process step by step, or, using one of Marcus's favourite website, give you a pictorial description. Best of all, I could produce a private publication. But I won't. I'm too lazy. Doubtless you will by now have me earmarked as a nut-case, but believe me, the universe is simplicity itself.
With regard to water, fish and comprehension, I believe that there is nothing that can be created by baryons and forces that is beyond the comprehension of the human brain
#40
Peter Watkins
111
0
Just been looking back over this thread. Seems I've said it all before so disregard the above. Have to say though, I'd love to spend an evening arguing with you lot and set you on the right track.
...I'd love to spend an evening arguing with you lot and set you on the right track.
Unfortunately, not here. The PF rules state that discussions must be on mainstream, published theories. Whilst this thread started with questions about misconceptions, it has now become a discussion of a personal theory and, as such, is not permitted here. Thus I am closing the thread now.