Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nicuramar t1_j68311l wrote

Reply to comment by SailingNaked in If you could instantaneously place a space telescope at any desired distance (LYs), from any planet/galaxy etc., where would it be and what would you be documenting? And for what purpose? by kennyarsen

> That is where OP and you are wrong, and that’s their point I wanted to clarify. The words are interchangeable

Well, it’s just arguing semantics. Since I know how it actually works, irrespective of what you or I wish to call it, I am not going to address the rest of the comment.

−2

Anonymous-USA t1_j68rmez wrote

The Hubble flow is indeed constant. Everywhere. We’re all saying the same thing. Cheers to you both, I think we all understand it well from the get go and now surely OP too 🥂

1

SailingNaked t1_j6a3dyy wrote

You and OP are still wrong, and I am not arguing semantics. There are two things I corrected with my original comment, and they are not interchangeable.

The OP said the speed of expansion is different for something farther away. That is just plain wrong. The speed of expansion does not change just because something is farther away.

The correct thing to say would be the velocity (observation) of a distant object is faster than a closer object. That is what I said to OP in my original comment.

The rate or speed of expansion is the same no matter the distance.

A more distant object's velocity is faster than a closer object.

The velocity of a distant object is not the same thing as rate of expansion.

Velocity increases with distance, but the rate/speed of expansion stays the same.

0

nicuramar t1_j6abs1h wrote

> You and OP are still wrong,

I’m not OP or defending their views. I am just saying that expansion is stated as a rate, and doesn’t have units of velocity. I know how expansion works, and I wasn’t talking about that. You don’t need to keep explaining it, at least not for my sake :)

1