They travel at the speed of light in Dark Matter, which is supposed to comprise 99% of the visible universe (hence the only universe we can even attempt to measure).
The greatest distance over which we have received a man-initiated radio transmission of any sort takes ~ 11 hours to receive from the Voyager 2 space craft. The measured distance of estimated travel at this point is a mere <0.0012 light years.
That's like saying if 500 miles is equivalent to the range of one light year, and that since I travel at 60 MPH for a little more than 1/2 mile I will maintain 60 MPH for the next 500 miles.
This of course must first assume that all travel and speed goes perfectly and completely unimpeded in the grossly imperfect physical world in which travel takes place for the next 499.5 miles. And in terms of space distance travel completely without a view ahead or predictable path.
Multiply that level of uncertainty by the presumed thousands and by some estimates millions or billions of light years we are extrapolating this model out to, and one will be witness to a steeply decreasing confidence level one may credibly apply to any estimates derived from such vanishingly miniscule data points.
And some who study science use these same extrapolations and calculations, based on the speed of light in a vacuum (a "sterile," hence barely representative -- painly unrepresentative -- environment) to estimate intergalactic distances and the age of the universe itself.
Is it logical to make presumptions based upon such weakly measurable real data?
What is the speed of light in Dark Matter which is thousands of presumed light years in distance, and how do you know? Or maybe the real question is: can you credibly know?
What is the speed of light as it tries to escape from the black hole which in theory is swallowing it?
Spunkets says: "Re: The entire assembly appears to have a 2.5Bly radius."
ml/nj says: "And how do you know this?"
Spunkets replies: "The NASA guys said so."
With the knowledge that NASA has also been promulgating the "science" of AGW, is NASA a credible source for an unbiased, objective study of "science?"
My opinion is that NASA couldn't possibly estimate such a distance with any amount of accuracy due to the uncertain impact of recognized/perceived/known yet completely incomprehensible forces.
The Creator of the Universe is certainly in the position of being able to mock what man presumes is his "elevated" knowledge.
As quoted by metmom:
Job 38:6-8
6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,...."
If Job were alive today Job might have even been Divinely inspired to write something along the lines of what I'll just call: "Job 36:8-1/2"
8-1/2 "What is Dark Matter, yea, and from whence ariseth Black Holes? At what speed hath God stretched out His heavens before Him? Cans't thou not tell us, O man, who thinketh himself to be so learned? Or, art thou merely a prideful dumb ass, enamoured of thine own vanities, and, yea verily, of thine own conceit?"
OK, so Job didn't write that, but the writer of Hebrews did write this:
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3).
FReegards!
