Limitations of Observing Distant Space Objects

[PeterDonis]

there is no solid convincing link between observation and time that I'm aware of.

I'm sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere. You keep repeating the same wrong things and you are not listening to any of our responses.

Thread closed.

 

[Drakkith]

I know the thread is locked, but I wanted to include the following for others that may view it in the future.

Burning object is a burning object and not a light.

1. Yes, it is. Burning objects have been used as light sources for many, many millennia.
2. Even objects that aren't light sources still require that light reflects off of them to be seen, so the speed of light still must be taken into account.

Time, speed and distance are related, in order to calculate a true value of any of them, it is required that all of the three to have a true value, in order to have a true measure of time then you have to do the real distance, by using telescopes to observe a star, you are standing still and zooming in an instrument to magnify an distant object, there is no real distance traveled to have a true value of time. What actualy the telescope measuring is the estimate time reqired to travel that distane.

We don't measure the distance to a star by simply 'looking through a telescope' at it. For close objects we can use parallax measurements. For more distant objects we use other methods. See the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
https://www.uwa.edu.au/science/-/me...Explanation-of-the-cosmic-distance-ladder.pdf

there is no solid evidence that light photons will take that long journey through the dark matter and reach your eyes billions earth years later, there is no solid convincing link between observation and time that I'm aware of.

The finite speed of light is trivial to measure with modern instruments. You can do it on an optical bench in a lab at a university. Combine this with the distance measurements to far away stellar objects and we can get the flight times of light from those objects.

You are simply wrong and you need to accept it.

 

[PeterDonis]

We don't measure the distance to a star by simply 'looking through a telescope' at it.

Just to add: we also don't measure the time it took the light to travel by looking through a telescope; the OP's claim that "What actualy the telescope measuring is the estimate time reqired to travel that distance" is wrong. Telescopes can measure the apparent brightness and angular size of objects. With suitable equipment they can also measure the redshift of the light from those objects. It is the relationships between those three observables that gives us the input we need to calculate things like the distance to the object and the time it took the light to travel. Such calculations of course also make use of models of our universe constructed using General Relativity, and we compare various models by how well their predictions match the actual relationships between observables that we measure.

 

[jedishrfu]

The thread is now officially closed.

Thank you all for participating here.

I would ask the OP to reread what has been written to improve their understanding of the physics of astronomical observation. This is part of an emerging area of astronomy known as multi-messenger astronomy where we observe the full spectrum of light, including radio emissions as well as gravitational waves and neutrino emissions from astronomical events to better understand the processes involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-messenger_astronomy

Jedi