3 ms·
Sure. But that really is just pedantics. It isn't a surprise to anyone to point out that the source of something that was moving away from us 13Gy ago is now fu
by vectorjohn 11y ago
Sure. But that really is just pedantics. It isn't a surprise to anyone to point out that the source of something that was moving away from us 13Gy ago is now further away than it was. You are essentially just giving those words the least charitable interpretation and then picking on that. It isn't wrong, its just not perfectly unambiguous.
- notalaser 11y ago> It isn't wrong, its just not perfectly unambiguous. Yes, it's perfectly wrong, because those objects are not 13Gly away from us. A light-year really is defined as 300,000 km multiplied by whatever number of seconds there are in a year. The object is not at 13e9 x 300,000 x <a lot of seconds> kilometers from us if it took 13 billion years for the light to reach us. > It isn't a surprise to anyone to point out that the source of something that was moving away from us 13Gy ago is now further away than it was. If I wanted to give words the least charitable interpretation, I could point out that their motion has nothing to do with this -- they would still be farther than 13 Gly away from us even if they would not be moving away relative to the Earth :-).