Cosmology Theory

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MeteorWayne was, of course, correct.From the digital universe wiki:"Galaxies at high redshift often have peculiar shapes, in contrast to the well-developed spiral and elliptical galaxies seen in the local universe. At redshifts greater than 3 or 4, corresponding to when the universe was less than 2 billion years old, galaxies are primarily starburst systems."We have seen galaxies with redshifts up to z=7, whose light has been travelling for 12.9 billion years, but they don't look anything like the well developed galaxies we see around us locally. The Hubble deep sky image shows galaxies up to 12 billion ly's away, but most of them are a lot closer than that.You do not understand the science that you are trying to interpret in your own way.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek: Stars are stars and a collection of them is a galaxy or cloud.</p><p>Of course they have peculiar shapes at the edge of the universe,&nbsp;since due to their acceleration, they are streached out towards our line of sight. Thank you for your proof of my theory.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek: Stars are stars and a collection of them is a galaxy or cloud.Of course they have peculiar shapes at the edge of the universe,&nbsp;since due to their acceleration, they are streached out towards our line of sight. Thank you for your proof of my theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>No, they have a different shape because they were young galaxies in a younger universe, as opposed to the old galaxies we see close to us today. Your theory is not "proved". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, they have a different shape because they were young galaxies in a younger universe, as opposed to the old galaxies we see close to us today. Your theory is not "proved". <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>How do you get younger galaxies in a younger universe at 12 bly's unless there is random creation throughout that universe?</p><p>Further, if it takes 12 bly's for the light in deep space to get to us, how is that a young part of the universe? Would't it be thefirst created and the oldest</p><p>Your placing the fish in the trees and the monkeys in the sea.<br /></p>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:How do you get younger galaxies in a younger universe at 12 bly's unless there is random creation throughout that universe?Further, if it takes 12 bly's for the light in deep space to get to us, how is that a young part of the universe? Would't it be thefirst created and the oldestYour placing the fish in the trees and the monkeys in the sea. <br />Posted by <strong>bechcube</strong></DIV><br /><br />Just to clear some nomenclature up ... stars and galaxies created some 12 billion years ago would indeed be old today, were they to still exist, but are called young because the Universe was new back when they were created.&nbsp; We see them as they appeared then, when the Universe was new, because it's taken that long for the light from them to get to us here on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:How do you get younger galaxies in a younger universe at 12 bly's unless there is random creation throughout that universe?Further, if it takes 12 bly's for the light in deep space to get to us, how is that a young part of the universe? Would't it be thefirst created and the oldestYour placing the fish in the trees and the monkeys in the sea. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>The reason&nbsp;why we roll our collective eyes and poo poo your 'theory', is for comment like that above (plus the fact that&nbsp;your theory&nbsp;has holes in it that a truck could drive through).&nbsp; You don't seem to even have&nbsp;the most&nbsp;basic understanding of physics and cosmology.&nbsp; Do you understand what me_n_mac was saying?&nbsp; Try this if Betelgeuse were to just wink out of existence today we would not know it for 600 years, because it is 600 light years away.&nbsp; In fact Betelgeuse may have gone nova and settled down to a faint star that will not be able to be seen from earth we just don't know because the light from the event has not reached earth.&nbsp; When we look at the stars we are looking back in time so to speak.&nbsp; Neat huh?</p><p>At this point you should say&nbsp;that you were mistaken about the implication of looking at galaxies 12 billion light years away.&nbsp; </p><p>I have the feeling however that you are going to reply that somehow what you said was not incorrect.&nbsp; I am waiting with breathless anticipation to hear your rationalization.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason&nbsp;why we roll our collective eyes and poo poo your 'theory', is for comment like that above (plus the fact that&nbsp;your theory&nbsp;has holes in it that a truck could drive through).&nbsp; You don't seem to even have&nbsp;the most&nbsp;basic understanding of physics and cosmology.&nbsp; Do you understand what me_n_mac was saying?&nbsp; Try this if Betelgeuse were to just wink out of existence today we would not know it for 600 years, because it is 600 light years away.&nbsp; In fact Betelgeuse may have gone nova and settled down to a faint star that will not be able to be seen from earth we just don't know because the light from the event has not reached earth.&nbsp; When we look at the stars we are looking back in time so to speak.&nbsp; Neat huh?At this point you should say&nbsp;that you were mistaken about the implication of looking at galaxies 12 billion light years away.&nbsp; I have the feeling however that you are going to reply that somehow what you said was not incorrect.&nbsp; I am waiting with breathless anticipation to hear your rationalization. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>I apologize. I was assuming that all persons with interest in cosmology understood that the light that we see now is light that was created in the past. Therefore, when I speak of the edge of the universe, I am speaking of an edge in the past and, according to my theory, those light sources have disintegrated into gamma ray radiation and cease to exist. </p><p>However, by measuring the red shift of the light that is reaching us now, the time it took to get here can be calculated. That is why when we observe a GRB, we can sometimes see the light from the galaxy or star field that was there before the disintegration into the GRB. Thanks for exposing my wrong assumption.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just to clear some nomenclature up ... stars and galaxies created some 12 billion years ago would indeed be old today, were they to still exist, but are called young because the Universe was new back when they were created.&nbsp; We see them as they appeared then, when the Universe was new, because it's taken that long for the light from them to get to us here on Earth. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>Me_n_Mac:</p><p>I understand what you are saying but it seems contradictory. We speak of hot blue stars, as being created in the Eagle Nebulae, as being young stars relative to the others in the area. If we are now going to call new stars old stars of the past, it seems to be confusing.</p><p>Further, you said "were they to still &nbsp;exist". This seems to support my theory that when reaching close light speed, they disintegrate into GRBs and cease to been seen. Also, we believe stars are being created in hydrogen clouds here in the Milky Way. Does that mean that we are a young creation?<br /></p>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>The observable universe:<br /><br />Imagine the beginning of time. If light were around, it would take time to reach you, but this is the beginning of time so no light has had time to move yet. Right at the beginning, your <em>observable</em> universe has no size at all! As time moves forward, any light that exists will move at the speed of light. Suddenly you might see a small distance all around you, as light starts coming in from different directions.<br /><br />After a year, you would be able to see 1 light-year in all directions. After 100 years therefore, your observable universe would be a sphere, 100 light-years in radius. After 13.7 billion years, your observable universe would be 13.7 billion light-years in radius, as you receive light that has been travelling for 13.7 billion years.<br /><br />Hah! If only it were <em>that</em> simple! The problem comes when considering that the universe is <em>expanding</em>. At the start of things our observable part of the universe was very small and the universe was expanding incredibly fast, much faster than light. Also, light could not move freely until around 370,000 years after the Big-Bang. Before that, photons were frequently interacting with other particles and atoms didn't exist as everything was very hot and mixed up!<br /><br />But at 370,000 years in, the universe had been expanding and the temperature had cooled enough for atoms to form in a flash of light (the universe finally became transparent and photons first moved freely throughout it). These photons filled the universe at that time, and we still receive these photons today. They are now stretched into microwaves (by the expansion of the universe) and are known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).<br /><br />As all this was happening, the universe was expanding. When we worked out how much we thought those photons had been stretched by the expansion, it told us how much bigger the universe is today, than it was when those photons were emitted. We estimate that, when the CMBR was emitted, our observable universe was around 42 million light-years in radius, around 1100 times smaller than it is today.<br /><br />Hang on though! Didn't I earlier imply that, 370,000 years after the BB, our observable universe would be 370,000 light-years in radius? Well, that radius, based on the time that light takes to travel, is not actually a useful measure of distance at all! It is a measure of time elapsed only. When astronomers say the universe is 13.7 billion light-years in radius they are not giving you a distance through space, they are giving you a distance through time. Proper distance is a different thing entirely (although at distances closer to today, they are essentially the same). <br /><br />The CMBR photons we receive today have been travelling for 13.7 billion years, but they were emitted at a proper distance of only 42 million light-years away, all that time ago. The reason they have taken so long to reach us is that the universe is expanding, putting more distance in between photons and their eventual "targets".</p><p>At the beginning, imagine a point in space was right next to the point where our galaxy finally formed. The universe is expanding incredibly fast, carrying all neighbouring points directly away from us in all directions. If we move on to only 370,000 years later that (originally neighbouring) point in space was 42 million light-years away - that's how fast the universe was expanding, early on. Then the CMBR photons were emitted.</p><p>When those photons were emitted, the space they were travelling through was receding from this point in space so fast that, from our point of view, it was as if the photons themselves were receding from us too! The gradual deceleration of the expansion allowed those photons to <em>eventually</em> start making actual progress towards us, from our point of view. By the time they found themselves in regions of space where an object was receding from us slower than light, they were 5.7 billion light years away from this point in space, and the universe was around 4.5 billion years old! (This is when those photons crossed into our Hubble Sphere as it was at that time)<br /><br />13.7 billion years after they were originally emitted, 9.1 billion years after they found themselves in space that was receding from us only sub-luminally, we receive those CMBR photons that were only emitted 42 million light-years away. And the real mind-bender is that we think that the original emission point is now over 46 BILLION light-years away. The edge of our observable universe, the most distant point from which we have received CMBR photons, is 46 billion light years away and continues to recede from us. That "edge", known as the surface of last scattering, was receding from this point in space at over 58 times the speed of light when those CMBR photons were emitted, it is still receding at around 3 times the speed of light today and we assume there are galaxies there now, but all we see is the radiation emitted from there, long ago. <br /><br />The other mind-bender is that the whole universe is probably larger than our observable universe. After a fraction of a second, when our observable universe only had a radius of 10cm, there may well have been the same thing happening 20cm away. When the CMBR was emitted, and our observable universe was only 42 million light-years in radius, there might have been CMBR emitted 80 million light-years away, or much further away than that. Today, when we think our observable universe has a radius of 46 billion light-years and we assume, as galaxies formed in <em>these parts</em> that there would be galaxies throughout, there could be galaxies whose own observable part of the whole universe is totally separate from ours, galaxies that are 100s of billions of light-years away, outside of our observable part of the universe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>I have already shown you a model of how the metric expansion of space can cause distant galaxies to have apparent recession velocities higher than c, in my long post on page 2 of this thread. Now to explain how we <strong>see</strong> galaxies that have <em>always</em> had apparent recession velocities higher than c.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm">Consider the distance where an object (or a co-moving coordinate) is apparently receding at the speed of light. As the rate of expansion (or more accurately, the change in the scale factor of the background metric) was very fast in the early universe, this means that the distance at which a co-moving coordinate was <em>apparently</em> receding at c was <em>close</em> to this point in space. Imagine, if you will, that right after the Big-Bang (or inflation) distances down at the Planck length were increasing at the speed of light, but that the rate of expansion instantly decelerated from that value.<br /><br />If the expansion rate had remained constant, then so would the distance at which a co-moving coordinate was receding at c would have remained constant. But the rate of expansion decelerated over the first six billion years or so and therefore the distance at which a co-moving coordinate was apparently receding at c became larger.<br /><br />After cosmic inflation the observable universe was around 10cm across, but 380,000 years later it had a radius of around 42 million light years. The edge of the observable universe had, at that point, receded from what would become this point in space at many multiples of the speed of light in order to move 42 million light years in only 380,000 years, so at that point the distance where a co-moving coordinate was receding at c would have been well within that radius.<br /><br />And yet, we receive photons today that were emitted from the edge of the observable universe all those years ago. We receive photons that were emitted from the "surface of last scattering", which was receding from this point in space at least 50 times of the speed of light at the time those photons were emitted. They were only 42 million light years away when they were emitted, but they took 13.7 billion years to reach us.<br /><br />The rate of expansion continued to slow, and after something over 100 million years, the earliest galaxies formed. The observable universe was something around 2 billion light years in radius at that time. We have seen dim blobs that might be these galaxies, but the oldest, dimmest, most distant galaxy we have reliable measurements for emitted its light around 800 million years after the Big-Bang, it has a redshift just under z=7 and is estimated to have been 3.5 billion light years away when it emitted its light.<br /><br />Now lets look at a galaxy at redshift z=3. This <em>(much brighter)</em> light was emitted when the universe was 2.2 billion years old, 11.5 billion years ago when that galaxy is estimated to have been 5.3 billion light years away.<br /><br />Now we move closer still to redshift z=1.4 and here is where we find the galaxies that are apparently receding at the speed of light &ndash; that is, they were receding at the speed of light when they emitted the light we are now seeing. The light we are seeing was emitted when the universe was around 4.6 billion years old, just over 9 billion years ago. These galaxies are estimated to have been 5.7 billion years away when they emitted the light we see, and what is more, they are the <em>most distant</em> objects we have <strong>seen</strong> in the universe! Let me say that again. Objects that are apparently receding at the speed of light are the most distant objects we have <em>actually</em> seen. Let me explain what I mean by this...<br /><br />We use measurements of a galaxy's angular diameter <em>(how big the object actually looks in the sky)</em> to determine how far away they were when they emitted the light we are now seeing. This makes sense, as you always see any object at the distance it was when the light left it, regardless of whatever it does or however it moves afterwards. Anyway, that is how astronomers determine the distance a galaxy was from us when it emitted the light we are now seeing (of course, they also have to determine what the galaxy's actual or absolute size was to do this, and this is a whole other subject unto itself!).<br /><br />We find that the most distant galaxies by angular size are the ones that are apparently receding at c, and yet we see light from more distant (in time) galaxies that are dimmer and more redshifted and yet those galaxies have increasing angular diameter the further we look in that direction.<br /><br />Lets look at the figures (The first line is the CMBR or surface of last scattering) I took from Ned Wrights cosmology pages.<br /><br />Redshift____Distance then____Time since emission<br />z=1089_____42 million ly_____13.7 billion years ago<br />z=7________3.5 billion ly_____12.8 billion years ago<br />z=3________5.3 billion ly_____11.5 billion years ago<br />z=1.4______5.7 billion ly_______9 billion years ago<br />z=1________5.4 billion ly______7.7 billion years ago<br /><br />So you can see that if our criteria is the object that was furthest away when it emitted the light we are now seeing, then the most distant object we have seen, seen <em>as it was</em> when it was that distant, was a galaxy at redshift z=1.4 at 5.7 billion ly. But we have also seen objects whose photons have been travelling a lot longer. These objects were a lot closer when they emitted the photons and are now estimated to be a lot more distant as we receive those photons, than the objects that were apparently receding at the speed of light!<br /><br />Now if I haven't lost you or bored you to death so far, hopefully you will be getting an inkling into how this all works and what an apparent recession speed of c actually represents.</p> <p style="margin-bottom:0cm">The key thing to remember is that <strong>light never overtakes light</strong>. If you look at those figures above and also remember that we received all those photons at pretty much the same time you will find that:<br /><br />Photons were emitted 3.5 billion light years away, 12.8 billion years ago. 1.3 billion years later, photons were emitted 5.3 billion light years away and if light never overtakes light then those older photons must have &ldquo;been moved away by the rate of expansion&rdquo; to that distance. 2.5 billion years later still, photons were emitted 5.7 billion years away and so our older photons must have moved away that far by then. And all those photons reached us at the same time.</p> <p style="margin-bottom:0cm">So the light from that redshift=7 galaxy was receding from us (as it made its way towards us) from emission at 12.8 billion years ago until it passed the point where objects were apparently receding at lightspeed from us, 9 billion years ago. <strong>All</strong> light we receive that was <em>emitted before that time</em> was effectively moving away from us whilst it made its way towards us until it passed that point 5.7 billion light years away that was receding at c, 9 billion years ago, and then took another 9 billion years to reach us after that through a universe where the rate of expansion was levelling out and starting to accelerate again.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>My last 2 posts are my way of explaining aspects of how the mainstream view in cosmology describes the universe around us. Aspects of modern cosmology that are pertinent to this thread. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. My last 2 posts are my way of explaining aspects of how the mainstream view in cosmology describes the universe around us.&nbsp; Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>I think they should be copied and stickied in "Ask the Astronomer" forum.&nbsp; Recompile them, polish them up where you think they need it, doublecheck whatever you have to and incorporate anything you think useful like pics & such and submit it for a sticky.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd vote for it if we could vote on such things.&nbsp; It's great stuff and would help anyone interested in the subject of cosmology. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think they should be copied and stickied in "Ask the Astronomer" forum.&nbsp; Recompile them, polish them up where you think they need it, doublecheck whatever you have to and incorporate anything you think useful like pics & such and submit it for a sticky.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd vote for it if we could vote on such things.&nbsp; It's great stuff and would help anyone interested in the subject of cosmology. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Thank you for that, alp. I have three of them so far - "the observable universe", "the expanding grid" and "expansion rates", all posted in this thread (and elsewhere - they have made it unscathed through Q&A at BAUT). They gradually evolve as I refine them and I hope to put them on a webpage somewhere, with diagrams, when I am happy I have found the right balance between keeping it simple and not oversimplifying it! Perhaps it is time for me to start working on the diagrams, eh?</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>Then there is the little video I made a while back...&nbsp; The Most Distant Galaxies and a 16:9 widescreen version</p><p>Sorry for the shameless self-promotion <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Perhaps it is time for me to start working on the diagrams, eh?</DIV></p><p>It's time not only to work on the diagrams but, it's time to start working on your website. :) At least, a spot where you can put the collections together and organize them in a friendly and easy to use format would be great. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then there is the little video I made a while back...&nbsp; The Most Distant Galaxies and a 16:9 widescreen versionSorry for the shameless self-promotion !&nbsp; Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Very nice!&nbsp; I've always like Jarre too.&nbsp; I love the commentary in it as well.&nbsp; A good voiceover would be nice if it added to the sense-of-wonder effect. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Further, you said "were they to still &nbsp;exist". This seems to support my theory that when reaching close light speed, they disintegrate into GRBs and cease to been seen.&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />It seems that you are saying that at the 'edge of the universe'&nbsp;where we observe galaxies with recession speeds approaching the speed of light, the galaxies, because of there speed disentigrate into GRBs.&nbsp; There are several problems with this conclusion.</p><p>First galaxies with a recession speed of c are NOT traveling through space at c.&nbsp; Space is expanding and the galaxies are&nbsp;approximately fixed in space relative to the recession speed.</p><p>Secondly a galaxy can have a recession speed greater than c.&nbsp;&nbsp;Relativity is not violated if the recession speed is greater than c&nbsp;</p><p>Thirdly if you&nbsp;were in one of those far away galaxies and you were to&nbsp;look at&nbsp;our galaxy,&nbsp;our galaxy&nbsp;would appear to be approaching c and I do not think we are in danger of disintegrating into a GRB.</p><p>I would recommend that you read a book like COSMOS by Sagan.&nbsp;&nbsp;A book of this type is a&nbsp;very easy read and it will help to understand the basics of cosmology.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me_n_Mac:I understand what you are saying but it seems contradictory. We speak of hot blue stars, as being created in the Eagle Nebulae, as being young stars relative to the others in the area. If we are now going to call new stars old stars of the past, it seems to be confusing.Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>Confusing&nbsp; .... perhaps&nbsp;but think about how much time has passed since the observed light was created.&nbsp; Then it's less confusing.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Further, you said "were they to still &nbsp;exist". This seems to support my theory that when reaching close light speed, they disintegrate into GRBs and cease to been seen. Also, we believe stars are being created in hydrogen clouds here in the Milky Way. Does that mean that we are a young creation? <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />Stars die.&nbsp; I believe most of the 1'st generation of stars are now dead, having fused all their H and He.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with them "reaching light speed".&nbsp; Where did this fanciful idea come from ?&nbsp;&nbsp; Nevermind, I don't care to know.</p><p>FWIW : I think at 5 billion years old, "we"couldbe called middle aged.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you for that, alp. I have three of them so far - "the observable universe", "the expanding grid" and "expansion rates", all posted in this thread (and elsewhere - they have made it unscathed through Q&A at BAUT). They gradually evolve as I refine them and I hope to put them on a webpage somewhere, with diagrams, when I am happy I have found the right balance between keeping it simple and not oversimplifying it! Perhaps it is time for me to start working on the diagrams, eh?Then there is the little video I made a while back...&nbsp; The Most Distant Galaxies and a 16:9 widescreen versionSorry for the shameless self-promotion !&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Sweet!&nbsp; I have to watch those videos when I get home tonight.&nbsp; ;-) </p><p>Meanwhile, i second ALP's motion: those posts on the observable universe are awesome, and deserving of their own spot in ATA. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Confusing&nbsp; .... perhaps&nbsp;but think about how much time has passed since the observed light was created.&nbsp; Then it's less confusing.&nbsp;Stars die.&nbsp; I believe most of the 1'st generation of stars are now dead, having fused all their H and He.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with them "reaching light speed".&nbsp; Where did this fanciful idea come from ?&nbsp;&nbsp; Nevermind, I don't care to know.FWIW : I think at 5 billion years old, "we"couldbe called middle aged.&nbsp; <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>mee_n_mac:</p><p>First you present an argument and then say&nbsp;" never mind, I don't care to know".</p><p>FWIW???</p><p>You seem to disagree with mainstream evidence. Hot blue stars are being seen in galaxies throughout the universe. How do you explain them relative to your beliefs?</p><p>Further, since the new candle, A1 supernova, show that the universe is accelerating in expansion,&nbsp;then eventually would not the galaxies approach light speed or do you believe that the acceleration will slow down somewhere in the expansion?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>mee_n_mac:First you present an argument and then say&nbsp;" never mind, I don't care to know".FWIW???You seem to disagree with mainstream evidence. Hot blue stars are being seen in galaxies throughout the universe. How do you explain them relative to your beliefs?Further, since the new candle, A1 supernova, show that the universe is accelerating in expansion,&nbsp;then eventually would not the galaxies approach light speed or do you believe that the acceleration will slow down somewhere in the expansion?&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />You are confusing two completely different concepts. One is the expansion of space, and the other is movement within that space.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It appears there is no hope for a breakthorugh that will help you understand the difference.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to disagree with mainstream evidence. Hot blue stars are being seen in galaxies throughout the universe. How do you explain them relative to your beliefs?Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>First I'm curious as to what beliefs you think I have that are counter to the mainstream evidence.&nbsp; I'm unaware of this so enlighten me if you choose. WRT "hot blue" stars being see in galaxies through out the universe ... so what.&nbsp; Does Rigel somehow validate your theory or invalidate mainstream thinking.&nbsp; Give us a clue as to what you're thinking here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Further, since the new candle, A1 supernova, show that the universe is accelerating in expansion,&nbsp;then eventually would not the galaxies approach light speed or do you believe that the acceleration will slow down somewhere in the expansion?&nbsp; Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />As MW said and perhaps I should ask, do you understand the difference between the metric expansion of space-time and traveling through space ?&nbsp; There are already observed redshifts that indicate galaxies receeding from us at superluminal rates.&nbsp; Speedy's posts above give you the present best understanding of how this comes about.&nbsp; I sense you disagree with it (expansion of space-time) or perhaps you don't. In any case I'm very unsure as to how you come to the conclusion that far away galaxies are somehow going poof and emitting gamma rays and how this idea ties into expansion ... or doesn't.&nbsp; Perhaps a few clarifying questions are in order ...</p><p>1) Do you believe the Earth lies at the center of the entire Universe and not just at the center of our observable universe ?&nbsp; </p><p>2) Do you believe that galaxies are travelling through space, like a fast rocketship, at speeds > C ?</p><p>3) Do you believe that the above speeds are some causing galaxies to "explode" (please fill in a better term) and thus cause a GRB ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>We also need to know how bechcubes theory deals with redshift and how it accounts for galaxies with redshifts far higher than those galaxies that were apparently receding at c when they emitted the light we see.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We also need to know how bechcubes theory deals with redshift and how it accounts for galaxies with redshifts far higher than those galaxies that were apparently receding at c when they emitted the light we see. <br />Posted by <strong>SpeedFreek</strong></DIV><br /><br />Yeah, I guess these latter discussions come from your picking on the 1'st result of bechcube's new TOE, namely :</p><p><font face="Calibri">Galaxies reaching near light velocity at the edge of the universe disintegrate leaving gamma ray bursts<span>&nbsp; </span>and non-existent optical galaxy photons, solving the mystery of the missing galaxies.</font></p><p>&nbsp;So I'm guessing that the belief is that galaxies are moving through space-time (vs being carried along within it) and that&nbsp;their speeds build (proportional to their distance&nbsp;from us as evidenced by redshift, etc) for some unknown reason but when their speed approaches C they disintegrate with a resultant GRB.&nbsp; The above assumption being true means beachcube has to explain how we observe Z's indicating superluminal speeds.&nbsp; I'm also curious about the term "mystery of the missing galaxies" but I'll defer that question until "we" get to a better understanding of what bechcube is saying.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; I'm also curious about the term "mystery of the missing galaxies" but I'll defer that question until "we" get to a better understanding of what bechcube is saying.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>I was also unaware that we have missing Galaxies.&nbsp; Sounds like a mystery worthy of the 'Hardly Boys".&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>From what I can gather, by "missing galaxies" he means that there are no observed galaxies beyond a certain distance, the distance where galaxies recede at c. That is, if your distance criteria is proper distance when the light we see was emitted.</p><p>He is correct here, in the sense that we see galaxies with higher redshifts, but not with higher proper distances than the galaxies at the edge of our Hubble Sphere. We see dimmer, higher redshifted galaxies, but they were closer than 5.7 billion light years when they emitted the light we now see. The galaxies receding at c, the ones at the edge of our Hubble Sphere, were 5.7 billion light-years away, 9.1 billion years ago when they emitted the light we now see. They are the most distant objects (as in the proper distance when they emitted their light, as opposed to an <em>assumed</em> comoving distance) we have seen.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From what I can gather, by "missing galaxies" he means that there are no observed galaxies beyond a certain distance, the distance where galaxies recede at c. That is, if your distance criteria is proper distance when the light we see was emitted.He is correct here, in the sense that we see galaxies with higher redshifts, but not with higher proper distances than the galaxies at the edge of our Hubble Sphere. We see dimmer, higher redshifted galaxies, but they were closer than 5.7 billion light years when they emitted the light we now see. The galaxies receding at c, the ones at the edge of our Hubble Sphere, were 5.7 billion light-years away, 9.1 billion years ago when they emitted the light we now see. They are the most distant objects (as in the proper distance when they emitted their light, as opposed to an assumed comoving distance) we have seen.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>Thank you for your post. It is true that when the universe was smaller, the time factor of the ly was less. I am not sure of the relevance but it is true.</p><p>I base my observations, not only on the distance in time that Hubble can see but also the evidence obtained by x-ray, infrared, radio and other observations.</p><p>Nevertheless, regarding the missing galaxies.I am merely saying that when a GRB occurs, search for the galaxy in that exact location shows that the light of a galaxy lingers for a short time and then disappears and is therefore missing. Does that make sense?&nbsp;<br /></p>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Thank you for your post. It is true that when the universe was smaller, the time factor of the ly was less. I am not sure of the relevance but it is true.I base my observations, not only on the distance in time that Hubble can see but also the evidence obtained by x-ray, infrared, radio and other observations.Nevertheless, regarding the missing galaxies.I am merely saying that when a GRB occurs, search for the galaxy in that exact location shows that the light of a galaxy lingers for a short time and then disappears and is therefore missing. Does that make sense?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>I think you may have misunderstood the terminology I was using, as it is not a question of what "Hubble can see". </p><p>If the universe is expanding, there is a distance from any point where another point is receding at the speed of light. This is known as the Hubble distance. We see galaxies at the Hubble distance as it was 9 billion years ago, when galaxies 5.7 billion light-years away were receding at c. The Hubble distance represents the radius of a sphere around us, and everything outside that sphere recedes faster than light. We estimate that the edge of the sphere is currently 14 billion light years away, but we won't see the light emitted there <em>now</em>, for a very long time!</p><p>But the key issue is that, using x-ray, infrared, radio and other observations, we see galaxies with far higher redshifts than the galaxies we see when they were at the Hubble distance. We see galaxies whose light has been travelling for far longer than the light from the galaxies that were receding at the speed of light. These galaxies were close to us when they emitted their light, the universe was still young at the time and expanding very fast. Their light receded from us with the expansion until around 4.5 billion years later, when it passed the galaxies we see receding at the speed of light, and then all the light continued towards us through space that was expanding slower than light from our point of view.</p><p>A galaxy with a redshift of z=7 was receding much faster than light when it emitted the light we are now seeing. Why had it not already disintegrated?</p><p>The bottom line here is as follows:</p><p>Do you agree with the current cosmological model regarding a redshift of z=~1.4 equating to recession at the speed of light? If so, how do you explain us being able to see galaxies with far higher redshifts? If not, at what redshift are galaxies receding at c in your model, and why? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you may have misunderstood the terminology I was using, as it is not a question of what "Hubble can see". If the universe is expanding, there is a distance from any point where another point is receding at the speed of light. This is known as the Hubble distance. We see galaxies at the Hubble distance as it was 9 billion years ago, when galaxies 5.7 billion light-years away were receding at c. The Hubble distance represents the radius of a sphere around us, and everything outside that sphere recedes faster than light. We estimate that the edge of the sphere is currently 14 billion light years away, but we won't see the light emitted there now, for a very long time!But the key issue is that, using x-ray, infrared, radio and other observations, we see galaxies with far higher redshifts than the galaxies we see when they were at the Hubble distance. We see galaxies whose light has been travelling for far longer than the light from the galaxies that were receding at the speed of light. These galaxies were close to us when they emitted their light, the universe was still young at the time and expanding very fast. Their light receded from us with the expansion until around 4.5 billion years later, when it passed the galaxies we see receding at the speed of light, and then all the light continued towards us through space that was expanding slower than light from our point of view.A galaxy with a redshift of z=7 was receding much faster than light when it emitted the light we are now seeing. Why had it not already disintegrated?The bottom line here is as follows:Do you agree with the current cosmological model regarding a redshift of z=~1.4 equating to recession at the speed of light? If so, how do you explain us being able to see galaxies with far higher redshifts? If not, at what redshift are galaxies receding at c in your model, and why? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>Because I am getting comment from four posters at once, I'll respond to yours and hope it answers all posters.</p><p>We are talking about apples and oranges. The apple states that light photons are traveling in a moving inflationary&nbsp;universe. This theory produces some very nasty infinities and unrealistic time dilation's. So one looking at the apple from an adjacent universe would see the apparent light moving at a velocity greater than "c". Basically, your expansion of the apple could reach infinity.</p><p>The orange states that the JAH Field is stationary and each JAH rotates with a linear velocity of "c".</p><p>So if an object left a JAH, it would travel in a straight line with velocity of "c".</p><p>Follow this analogy:</p><p>If you had a&nbsp;floor covered with 10>50 random tops, with there being &nbsp;137 different colored tops, each same &nbsp;colored top&nbsp;spinning with a same&nbsp;moment of 137th. of 90 degrees then in 10>-50ccm(a cube of 10>-3.???cm in width, length and depth,&nbsp; the tops with the same color and therefore moment would vibrate together and they would form a particle, depending on the number of vibrating JAH that make up the particle. If a force is applied, the group of tops would cause the same tops in the direction of movement to vibrate resulting in the particle changing vibrating tops&nbsp;but without the tops moving. Since there are 10>50 divided by 137 sets of same colored/moment tops in 10>-50 ccm, there are adequate sets to transfer all&nbsp;different waves traveling through space. There are no infinities in this model.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts