Accurate distance measurement in universe by speed of light? Impossible....?

Question

I challenge the accuracies of distances measured in the universe by speed of light. We know that nothing is stationary in the universe. I would say the entire universe is spinning itself at the rate beyond our imagination. We believe that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. But, I would say that Universe itself is spinning at much larger speed than the speed of light and that accelerates everything in it. The wall acceleration generates enough gravitational pool inside the universe and provides rate that moves everything inside it. It is possible that the point we are looking as the deep viewing (14 billion LY) of galactic cluster may come closer to us one day, that means Andromeda Galaxy and/or the other neighboring galaxies would move billions of LT away from us.

Answer 1

Everyone (especially scientists) challenge distance measurement in the universe. Not because they do not believe in them (most agree that the Universe is huge), but because our distance scale is built of smaller units which, themselves, have a degree of uncertainty.

The distance to the closest stars are measured by parallax (difference in apparent position over 6 months). From those, we build a relationship between spectrum and absolute magnitude. Next come distances by "spectral parallax", i.e., the guessing of a star's absolute magnitude from its spectrum. Comparing the absolute magnitude with the apparent magnitude gives us a distance estimate. The "guessing" is relatively accurate, but there is always a small degree of uncertainty.

Next, we use Cepheids (and other special variable stars) to measure even greater distances. The idea is that there is a relationship between the mean absolute magnitude of these stars and the period of variability. With Cepheids, we measure distances to some of the nearest galaxies. There is some uncertainty in the relationship, and that is on top of the uncertainty in the original data due to the uncertainty of the distance obtained by spectral parallax, due to uncertainty of the distances obtained from stellar parallax... you get the picture. Tiny errors do build up when you are forced to carry them into the next step.

In some of the galaxies for which we have distances, we have observed Type Ia (one a) supernovae: stars that explode in a very precise way, when they reach a relatively precise mass. When we observe the same kind of supernova in a further galaxy, then we estimate the distance to that galaxy by comparing the apparent magnitude of its supernova with that of the supernova in the closer galaxies.

We now have a large enough sample to see a trend: the further away a galaxy is, the more redshifted its light seems to be. From that, we have set up a distance scale that is based on the shift of certain lines in the galactic spectra. This shift is due to the expansion of space itself. We have even learned to distinguish this redshift from the redshift caused by gravity (if ever we are analysing the light from a particularly massive galaxy).

So, is there uncertainty in our distance measurements. Sure there is. If we say that galaxy A is 10 times further away than galaxy B, we may not be willing to bet our entire paycheck on it being exactly 10.00 times. however, we feel quite confident that A is not 217 times further away and that A is not just 2 times futher away.

Is the universe spinning? Possibly. Is the universe (including the part we cannot see because its light has not had time to reach us yet) infinite? Some think so.

If that is the case, even if the rate of rotation is small locally, it still amounts to an "infinite" speed at an infinite distance from us.

However, it is difficult to imagine the meaning of a rotating universe if the universe is everything there is. It is rotating around what or in relation to what?

As to the further point we can see right now at 14 billion light years: we are seeing this point as it was 14 billion years ago. Because of the expansion of space, it is most probably much further away from us now, if we could see it where it is now, not where it was 14 billion years ago.

For it to be closer to us, it would have had to move towards us at almost the speed of light. If that were the case, its light would not appear to be so redshifted as it does. In fact, the blue shift due to the approaching speed should cancel out the redshift cause by the expansion of space. There should be no redshift left. Yet, the light we see is very redshifted.

Whether or not the furthest point is approaching us should not affect the position of Andromeda until the object gets very close to us. In fact, Andromeda and the Milky Way (our Galaxy) are in orbit around each other; Andromeda is approaching us and in a few billion years, it is possible that the two galaxies begin to merge into a giant elliptical galaxy. This will take place well before any galaxy seen at 14 billion light-years gets here.

Answer 2

All measurements are subject to errors, except for the fairly trivial one of counting a small number of objects. Errors apply to measuring the length of a piece of wood with a carpentry rule, to the weight of sugar for a cake as well as to measuring the distance to the next town or galaxy.

The sign of good measurement is reduction of errors and estimation of how large they may be or are. Most popular expositions of science do not show the measured or estimated errors. The scientific publications on which the popular stuff is bases usually do show the estimated errors. If things are moving toward you or away this just complicates things. If some astronomic feature is measured as being 10 billion LY away, that means that the average measurement at the time of measurement was 10 billion LY.

Andromeda is about 2.5 million LY away. Close, by astronomic standards. It is probably not moving away from us rapidly or at all as it may be part of the local group of galaxies.

What wall? Is the Universe spinning? It is expanding, so they say, in all the directions it can whizz. What was your point again?

Answer 3

Dear Ash...

Your statements and disbelief are monumental in their incorrectness. I am astounded that you would publish such nonsense where it could be seen by others and you could be so clearly identified as having such a poor understanding of the universe as a whole.

I recommend that you first complete High School, then go to a good College, and follow this with a two to four year study program in Astronomy and Physics for at least a Masters Degree. Then, and only then, it will be possible for you to come forward and make intelligent statements which are supported by facts, reason, and logical deductions. The information you provided in your question demonstrate none of that. What I do see is that you have had a light, once over exposure to some magazines or texts on astronomy and outer space. Don't mess it up with hasty conclusions and wild assumptions. What you are talking about has taken thousands and thousands of man hours of study and reasearch to develop clear data on. Is it your position that you alone know better than the thousands of scholars who performed all this detailed research? Come on now... If that is really your position, I can hear the giggles and laughter in the back seats beginning already.

Answer 4

But you are missing the main point. Any measurement we take is relative. The speed of light is a theoretical absolute. It's speed is fixed at around 300 thousand km per second in (buzzword) vacuum(perfect vacuum). But the universe is not a perfect vacuum. We expect the measurements to be off either on the plus side or the minus. The closer the object we measure using the speed of light the smaller the error(statistically on a normal curve). The more we learn the smaller will the error become. So there is nothing to challenge here as no one will claim that the measurements are 100% accurate.

Answer 5

Not so; there is no such rotation: it would have various observable effects which are not seen. The Cepheid variables give good numbers for the distances of stars out to a million light years or so; beyond that, it's the Hubble red shift. Einstein showed that the speed of light is the ultimate limiting speed in the universe.

Answer 6

1) Please provide evidence for a spinning universe, and please tell us how you came to that conclusion, seeing how we don't have anything to measure the universe's properties relative to.

2) Not really sure what you're talking about with 'wall acceleration' and how that generates gravity that appears to be specific to objects rather than the universe.

3) Not sure how you came to that conclusion or what that conclusion is exactly - clusters moving closer? Galaxies moving away? So I'd have to say there's no evidence for your idea, and you really need a more solid foundation for it before trying to get it published.

Answer 7

The universe is moving at FAR less than the speed of light, except for small particles like electrons and gamma rays.

But you're point is well taken, With that RELATIVE motion it is hard to firmly measure the distance using triangulation.

We run into Einstiens paradox. Is the ball falling straight down or down and in an elipse.

Answer 8

According to GR, an observer only needs a frame of reference, this speed is a definition, not a measurement. Since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined since October 21, 1983 in terms of the speed of light; one metre is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Converted to imperial units, the speed of light is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.384 miles per hour, or almost one foot per nanosecond.
Cosmologist's have some very new theories about the universe that could turn everything we think we know upside down.
Check it out>>>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Answer 9

The speed of light is the limit. When an object reaches the speed of light it is converted into energy, as evidenced by Einstein's equation.

Some elementary particles however, which have yet to be observed, have speeds greater than that of light. These particles, whatever they may be, are called tachyons. Those particles cannot be slowed.

Answer 10

Scientific measurements are as accurate as humanity can currently make them. Creating a time-line for Earth History is based on time estimates of clues found, the reading of fossil layers in rocks, the calculations of probabilities. Everytime a scientific discovery occurs, several additional questions spring up. Should humanity every fail to be curious of our environment, that is the time that humanity will stagnate.