Relativity of simultaneity VS comoving size of observable universe

[ASTROSTONER]

How can anyone say something is comoving if Einstein's Relativity of simultaneity is true?

i hear this word used when describing the size of the observable universe.

They say its 94 billion light years across because we see where the light was 13 billion years ago and it has expanded since.

but that's not true, we see the light AFTER space has already expanded for 13 billion years.

wouldn't that make the universe much smaller?

 

[DarkClearSkies]

The concept of comoving distance in cosmology is a way to account for the expansion of the universe when measuring distances on a large scale. It takes into consideration the expansion of space itself, allowing us to define a consistent reference frame.

In the context of the observable universe, the comoving distance takes into account the expansion of space since the light was emitted from distant objects. When we observe light from a galaxy that is, say, 13 billion light-years away, we are seeing the light that was emitted by that galaxy 13 billion years ago. However, during that time, space has expanded, stretching the wavelength of the light as it travels towards us.

The comoving distance is the distance between us and the galaxy measured at the time the light was emitted. It takes into account the expansion of space, so it represents the size of the universe as it was when the light was emitted. This allows cosmologists to compare different regions of the universe at different times.

It's important to note that the comoving distance is different from the physical distance, which refers to the current distance between two objects in the universe. The physical distance takes into account the expansion of space and can be greater than the comoving distance due to the ongoing expansion of the universe.

So, when scientists say that the observable universe is about 94 billion light-years across, they are referring to the comoving distance, which takes into account the expansion of space over time. This measurement represents the size of the universe as it was when the light we observe was emitted, not its current size.

 

[Gibsense]

How can anyone say something is comoving if Einstein's Relativity of simultaneity is true?

i hear this word used when describing the size of the observable universe.

They say its 94 billion light years across because we see where the light was 13 billion years ago and it has expanded since.

but that's not true, we see the light AFTER space has already expanded for 13 billion years.

wouldn't that make the universe much smaller?

The light is travelling around the circumference rather than the radius of the universe. It is the radius that determines the age, not the travel distance of light I guess

 

[Atlan0001]

The actual imperfect curvature of the universe, Planck/Big Bang Horizon duality 0-point to 0-point, is 'Klein bottle' shaped rather than the near perfect spherical shape:

To wit the grid of it, latitudinal / longitudinal:

Klein bottle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gibsense]

The actual imperfect curvature of the universe, Planck/Big Bang Horizon duality 0-point to 0-point, is 'Klein bottle' shaped rather than the near perfect spherical shape:

To wit the grid of it, latitudinal / longitudinal:

Klein bottle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A Klein Bottle is an extraordinary object to exist. It has no real outside or inside.
Rather complex in my mind. I would rather "side" with the principle that
simple is best. What is more simple than a sphere (topologically of course)

 

[Atlan0001]

A Klein Bottle is an extraordinary object to exist. It has no real outside or inside.
Rather complex in my mind. I would rather "side" with the principle that
simple is best. What is more simple than a sphere (topologically of course)

Doesn't work when you are talking MULTIVERSE multi-dimensionality, Schrodinger-like, such as there being no real differences between nonlocal, non-finite, nonrelative, infinite and infinitesimal, or between black hole and white hole, or between the microcosmic Planck Horizon and macrocosmic Big Bang Horizon . . . each pairing of two actually being a naked singularity of one and the same entity which the 'Klein bottle' represents and puts on fine, simple and obvious display in the bottle's opening.

You looked and did not see:

1.) 1-dimensional string ring cyclic circling.
2.) 2-dimensional FLATLAND matter surface.
3.) 3-dimensional SPHERE (and/or DOUGHNUT) energy volume.
4.) fractal zooms universe structure (to infinities), horizon-level-layers (to infinities) 0-point 'set' and 'reset' to fundamental binary base2 ('0' (null unity) and/or '1' (unity)) . . . and parity's always 'trojan' third.

 

[Gibsense]

Doesn't work when you are talking MULTIVERSE multi-dimensionality, Schrodinger-like, such as there being no real differences between nonlocal, non-finite, nonrelative, infinite and infinitesimal, or between black hole and white hole, or between the microcosmic Planck Horizon and macrocosmic Big Bang Horizon . . . each pairing of two actually being a naked singularity of one and the same entity which the 'Klein bottle' represents and puts on fine, simple and obvious display in the bottle's opening.

You looked and did not see:

1.) 1-dimensional string ring cyclic circling.
2.) 2-dimensional FLATLAND matter surface.
3.) 3-dimensional SPHERE (and/or DOUGHNUT) energy volume.
4.) fractal zooms universe structure (to infinities), horizon-level-layers (to infinities) 0-point 'set' and 'reset' to fundamental binary base2 ('0' (null unity) and/or '1' (unity)) . . . and parity's always 'trojan' third.

Ok, so what issue does such topology solve about what we consider unexplained issues?
Examples:
1. The hypersphere proposal I posted (a 3-sphere) reconciles the Hubble Constant CMB derived 71 with the Hubble Telescope 69. (add 380,000 light years to Hubble to get back to BB)
2. Black holes (and our universe) do not have a singularity (?) this assertion can be reasoned
3. The distant galaxies do not fit with the idea that we are looking at them when young; they are a result of curvature
4. Accelerating universe, at least partially, an illusion again as a result of curvature
5. Dark Energy: a result of our universe 'feeding'
6

 

[Atlan0001]

Ok, so what issue does such topology solve about what we consider unexplained issues?
Examples:
1. The hypersphere proposal I posted (a 3-sphere) reconciles the Hubble Constant CMB derived 71 with the Hubble Telescope 69. (add 380,000 light years to Hubble to get back to BB)
2. Black holes (and our universe) do not have a singularity (?) this assertion can be reasoned
3. The distant galaxies do not fit with the idea that we are looking at them when young; they are a result of curvature
4. Accelerating universe, at least partially, an illusion again as a result of curvature
5. Dark Energy: a result of our universe 'feeding'
6

I've learned to solve "issues" to my satisfaction and, maybe, some others. If I don't solve issues to your satisfaction, that is your problem, not mine. You can address my issues as you like; I will address yours as I like from my own picturing and modeling, in my own way.

You are new here. I am a old battle scarred veteran warrior and survivor in the lists now in this . . . liking more sparring, inspirationally inspiring, partners or determined jousting opponents. I warn you only that in the hyper and sub levels I deal in, you won't win any contest you might attempt. Welcome to the arena, though, and go to it!

 

[Gibsense]

ok, you win