Expanding Universe

[yevaud]

<i>Well, I must admit I am slightly puzzeld over this suddendly strict moderating policies...</i><br /><br />There is nothing "new" about these policies. They have been in effect for several <i>years</i>.<br /><br /><i>I was trying to give you a hypothesis ( and I made it WERY clear that it was a hypothesis only) regarding the expansion of the universe.</i><br /><br />And so you are. Pray continue. The only caveat being - <i>uniformly</i> applied across the hard science forums - that ideas that are not a part of accepted or mainstream science have a limited time span here. If you can actually prove them or even show a glimmer of correctness to them, then they remain; if not, the thread <b>may</b> head to Phenomena.<br /><br />That is our policy, applied here for years. And that is <i>all</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

In other words we dont want cranks. But ranur has rightly pointed out such threads are going for long time and months together.

 

[yevaud]

Heh. Posting at the same time. Never seen that here, nope. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Yeah, there have been crackpot threads before, which does not in the least imply <i>this</i> is a crackpot thread. We try to remove the truly crackpot threads when we find them, but sometimes they actually escape our notice (can't be everywhere). That's why we rely a lot on the "please move this thread" thread in S&A.<br /><br />At any rate, none of my comments were intended to suggest anything was going awry here; merely a courtesy to the participants of this discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

No, not a crank; I didn't imply that. However, you <i>did</i> state some very speculative physical theory, that is to say, contradicting current theory. It is entirely possible you will not be able to "prove" it. Others may also then pick up the ball and continue to run with it, pursuing the unproven line of reasoning. At some point, it becomes an issue. That's all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

What, time being a "flexible" quantity that changes as the spacetime metric changes? Possibly so. Of course, per/entropy, always forward, not retrograde. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[danzaxe69]

As I look at images from the Hubble at distant spiral galaxies and of nebulae, it appears that the images are frozen in time, althought they outwardly appear to be in motion. Is there something I am missing. Is our perception of time and space actually different in our perception? Example, Nebulas appear to have been stirred up ie; gas and dust,,,I just dont get it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I look at images from the Hubble at distant spiral galaxies and of nebulae, it appears that the images are frozen in time, althought they outwardly appear to be in motion. Is there something I am missing. Is our perception of time and space actually different in our perception? Example, Nebulas appear to have been stirred up ie; gas and dust,,,I just dont get it <br />Posted by danzaxe69</DIV><br /><br />From our distance, most things are frozen in time. Almost everything in the universe that can be perceived takes place on time scales much longer than a human lifetime.</p><p>However there are fast events out there. Supernova, the resultant expanding dust shells, etc. Many individual stars move fast enough to detect. But you need high powered telescopes and instruments to see the changes. Mant are not visible in light wavelengths, but are in infrared, radio or X-ray wavelengths.</p><p>For a small scope, the best way to see change is looking at the solar system. Unaided observations can easily be seen in the motion of the planets sun and moon, comets, and meteors!</p><p>MW</p><p>If yo</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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I look at images from the Hubble at distant spiral galaxies and of nebulae, it appears that the images are frozen in time, althought they outwardly appear to be in motion. Is there something I am missing. Is our perception of time and space actually different in our perception? Example, Nebulas appear to have been stirred up ie; gas and dust,,,I just dont get it <br /> Posted by danzaxe69</DIV></p><p>Galaxies swirl around in clusters, sometimes hitting their neighbours or dragging their neighbouring galaxies apart, depending on how they interact gravitationally. They are stirring each other up.&nbsp; But these objects are very large and move relatively slowly and these interactions can take millions or billions of years.</p><p>As we look out into the universe, we see a "snapshot" of all these interactions, as the light from them reaches us. The universe looks to be a very dynamic place, but dynamic over very large scales and durations. Andromeda is the closest galaxy to our Milky-Way and it is around 2.5 million light years away. It is heading towards us and we may collide in around 3 billion years time, but I doubt our view of it will change much during our lifetimes. We cannot "see" it rotating or moving towards us.</p><p>It takes the Solar System about 225&ndash;250 million years to complete one orbit of our galaxy. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Galaxies swirl around in clusters, sometimes hitting their neighbours or dragging their neighbouring galaxies apart, depending on how the interact gravitationally. They are stirring each other up.&nbsp; But these objects are very large and move relatively slowly and these interactions can take millions or billions of years.As we look out into the universe, we see a "snapshot" of all these interactions, as the light from them reaches us. The universe looks to be a very dynamic place, but dynamic over very large scales and durations. Andromeda is the closest galaxy to our Milky-Way and it is around 2.5 million light years away. It is heading towards us and we may collide in around 3 billion years time, but I doubt our view of it will change much during our lifetimes. We cannot "see" it rotating or moving towards us.&nbsp; -Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p><p>Thank you for your input.&nbsp; I knew very little of that.&nbsp; Please explain:&nbsp; What do you mean, see it rotating?&nbsp; I'm not sure how the data collection works, but I'm very interested.&nbsp; Do we take a picture of a galaxy one year, then again the next year and look for changes?&nbsp; How do we know it's moving towards us?&nbsp; Blue shift?&nbsp; How can we tell if it is moving in a somewhat different path than towards us?&nbsp; What methods do we have to do this in our own galaxy?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you for your input.&nbsp; I knew very little of that.&nbsp; Please explain:&nbsp; What do you mean, see it rotating?&nbsp; I'm not sure how the data collection works, but I'm very interested.&nbsp; Do we take a picture of a galaxy one year, then again the next year and look for changes?&nbsp; How do we know it's moving towards us?&nbsp; Blue shift?&nbsp; How can we tell if it is moving in a somewhat different path than towards us?&nbsp; What methods do we have to do this in our own galaxy? <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Even over aperiod of hundreds of years, there is no change in galaxies. At those distances the changes are too small to measure (at least as far as rotation is concerened) We know they are rotating because of the additional red and blue shift from the approaching and receding sides of the galaxies, but the positional chamges are too small to measure, in fact individual stars can not even be seen. It's just too far away. <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>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even over aperiod of hundreds of years, there is no change in galaxies. At those distances the changes are too small to measure (at least as far as rotation is concerened) We know they are rotating because of the additional red and blue shift from the approaching and receding sides of the galaxies, but the positional chamges are too small to measure, in fact individual stars can not even be seen. It's just too far away. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Is it always one side blue and one side red?&nbsp; This is done via microwaves?&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it always one side blue and one side red?&nbsp; This is done via microwaves?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>The links below explain it all fully. I'm not sure how much you know already, so have a look and then feel free to ask questions (not that I know all the answers!). <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><h1><font size="3"> Using spectra to derive motions</font></h1><p><font size="5">O</font><font size="4">RBITING </font><font size="5">B</font><font size="4">INARY </font><font size="5">S</font><font size="4">TARS</font></p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Microwaves are not involved, as far as I know.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Microwaves are not involved, as far as I know.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Redshift can be detected in any spectrum.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Redshift can be detected in any spectrum.&nbsp; <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>derekmcd</em></DIV></p><p>Precisely correct.&nbsp; The entire measured spectra are shifted higher or lower from the baseline.&nbsp; The degree to which it is shifted, higher or lower (e.g. left or right with respect to the baseline, equating to red- or blue-shifted), determines how much.&nbsp; Really quite simple, we used to do it in Spectroscopy lab.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>Oops yes sorry, good catch there guys! The questions <em>was</em> a little ambiguous though - "This is done via microwaves?"</p><p>I was wrong to say microwaves aren't involved, as the whole spectum is involved, but I don't think the microwave region of the spectum is any more relevant to deriving motion than other wavelengths. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oops yes sorry, good catch there guys! The questions was a little ambiguous though - "This is done via microwaves?"I was wrong to say microwaves aren't involved, as the whole spectum is involved, but I don't think the microwave region of the spectum is any more relevant to deriving motion than other wavelengths. &nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">No problem.&nbsp; I was ignorant of which waves were used anyway.&nbsp; I think it's mostly infrared, right?&nbsp; Thanks to the moderator for your input.&nbsp; so I read your notes on redshift and hubble law.&nbsp; </span></span></p><p><br />"Now, it turns out that if the material absorbing light is moving towards or away from us with some <strong>radial velocity"</strong></p><p>It goes on to talk about the math behind this decision.&nbsp; <strong>Not good enough.&nbsp; </strong></p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">What about quasars?<span>&nbsp; </span>Aren&rsquo;t quasars found to be very high redshifted and lying nearby to parent galaxies?<span>&nbsp; </span>Infrared streams connecting them, or even better, a quasar said to be billions of years away lying directly in front of its parent galaxy.<span>&nbsp; </span>&ldquo;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?&rdquo;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about quasars?&nbsp; Aren&rsquo;t quasars found to be very high redshifted and lying nearby to parent galaxies?&nbsp; Infrared streams connecting them, or even better, a quasar said to be billions of years away lying directly in front of its parent galaxy.&nbsp; &ldquo;The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?&rdquo;&nbsp;http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Ahh, you have stumbled across one of Halton Arp's objects!</p><p>Yes, there are a few observations that seem to contradict the mainstream theory, but they are by no means definitive.&nbsp; The quasar that lies 8 arcseconds from the centre of NGC 7319 does look as if it might be in that galaxy, but it might not. There are theories that quasars are the stripped cores of devoured galaxies that have been "spat out" at high velocity, and thus would be close to, but have a very different redshift from, their parent galaxy. Or that they might be a great distance away but shining through a less dense part of the galaxy and exciting gases within it.</p><p>So the jury is still out on the nature of quasars. The key point here is that, even if quasars turn out not to be very distant as previously thought, this just precludes us from using them as a measure of distance. It does not preclude us from using our observations of galaxies with redshifts of up to z=7 or so as a measure of distance, and does not contradict the idea that the universe is expanding, as we have many other observations that seem to confirm that, the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae being one of them and the increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of over z=1.6 being another.</p><p>We have seen no quasars with a redshift of over z=2.11 close to the centres of galaxies, but we have seen galaxies with redshifts of up to at least z=7. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No problem.&nbsp; I was ignorant of which waves were used anyway.&nbsp; I think it's mostly infrared, right?&nbsp; Thanks to the moderator for your input.&nbsp; so I read your notes on redshift and hubble law. </DIV></p><p>I believe it is mostly visible light unless the measurement is on a specific source such as a gamma ray burst.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Now, it turns out that if the material absorbing light is moving towards or away from us with some radial velocity"It goes on to talk about the math behind this decision.&nbsp; Not good enough.</DIV></p><p>Not sure what you are quoting and the context.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about quasars?&nbsp; Aren&rsquo;t quasars found to be very high redshifted and lying nearby to parent galaxies?</DIV></p><p>No.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Infrared streams connecting them, or even better, a quasar said to be billions of years away lying directly in front of its parent galaxy.</DIV></p><p>There is no evidence for this.&nbsp; Quite the opposite.&nbsp;&nbsp; Tens of thousands of quasars are known to be associated with their host galaxies. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&ldquo;The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?&rdquo;&nbsp;http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>There is nothing quantitative in that article that provides evidence the quasar is in front of NGC 7319.&nbsp; Galaxies, when viewed face on, are not opaque... we can see through them.&nbsp; Not to mention they are looking at a processed 2d image and using the age old excuse "it looks like".</p><p>There is absolutely no conclusive, convincing or even compelling evidence for intrisic redshift.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<br /><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The key point here is that, even if quasars turn out not to be very distant as previously thought, this just precludes us from using them as a measure of distance. &ndash;SpeedFreak </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">It&rsquo;s precisely the problem when the chicken comes before the egg.<span>&nbsp; </span>Somebody says expansion of the universe and then the ONLY things that are recorded are those that agree with it.<span>&nbsp; </span>Things that don&rsquo;t are just overlooked.<span>&nbsp; </span>With all due respect, it means that something else is responsible for red-shift.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or that they might be a great distance away but shining through a less dense part of the galaxy and exciting gases within it. &ndash;SpeedFreak </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tens of thousands of quasars are known to be associated with their host galaxies. &ndash;Derekmcd </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Try to agree.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is absolutely no conclusive, convincing or even compelling evidence for intrisic redshift.&nbsp;&ndash;Derekmcd </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Except that it explains the observed phenomenon without adding new properties of matter, and new laws which don&rsquo;t apply on earth.<span>&nbsp; </span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Except that it explains the observed phenomenon without adding new properties of matter, and new laws which don&rsquo;t apply on earth.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>It certainly does, but is it the correct explanation?&nbsp; Anyone can explain an observed phenomena, but the intepretation of what your senses gather is not always correct.&nbsp; And, it would seem here, that interpreting what is seen on a processed 2d image can be misleading. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It&rsquo;s precisely the problem when the chicken comes before the egg.&nbsp; Somebody says expansion of the universe and then the ONLY things that are recorded are those that agree with it.&nbsp; Things that don&rsquo;t are just overlooked.&nbsp; With all due respect, it means that something else is responsible for red-shift.</DIV></p><p>Have you considered that the universe might be expanding, and galaxies that are moving with that expansion show cosmological redshift. If quasars are ejected at <strong>high speeds</strong> from the remnants of consumed galaxies, they might indeed have much higher redshifts than galaxies that are close to them, due to the extra relativistic doppler shift from their velocity and that Doppler redshift would be added to their cosmological redshifts. </p><p>Or perhaps the quasars aren't close to those galaxies at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="1">Except that it explains the observed phenomenon without adding new properties of matter, and new laws which don&rsquo;t apply on earth.</font></DIV></span></p><p>I'm not so sure it does. How would intrinsic redshift explain the observed time-dilation of SN1a supernovae? Or the increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of over z=1.6? Both observations are entirely consistent with an expanding universe.</p><p>If the redshifts of these objects were due to a different cause, we need a mechanism by which Type 1a supernovae seem to have speeded up the duration of their explosions during the history of the universe and then slowed down again more recently, and a mechanism by which galaxies over a certain distance away (as measured by their apparent magnitude) seem to retain a similar structure to brighter galaxies, but get larger and larger in size the the more distant they are.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you considered that the universe might be expanding, and galaxies that are moving with that expansion show cosmological redshift. </DIV></p><p>I have not been shown any reason to believe this.&nbsp; Nothing has shown me that redshift means only distance or speed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nothing has proven to me that Hubble law stands on any solid ground.&nbsp; General relativity was thought up by a genius who was trying to explain what he saw, but that doesn't mean his equations&nbsp;can predict&nbsp;the past.&nbsp; It's just math.&nbsp; I think charged&nbsp;metals will show a shift in the spectrum from normal.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If quasars are ejected at high speeds from the remnants of consumed galaxies, they might indeed have much higher redshifts than galaxies that are close to them, due to the extra relativistic doppler shift from their velocity and that Doppler redshift would be added to their cosmological redshifts. </DIV></p><p>Your equations don't differentiate between distance and speed in Hubble Law.&nbsp; They say that recessional speed is distance and distance is redshift, suggesting that not only does the universe spread out from us in all directions, but that it is actually speeding up at quite impressive accelerations.&nbsp; Do you have any equations that separate distance and speed so that you can say "extra relativistic doppler shift?"</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or perhaps the quasars aren't close to those galaxies at all. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>I think we can agree that they are closely interacting.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>I edited my post above, as you were posting your reply.</p><p>Explain the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the increase in the apparent diameter of distant galaxies. The angular diameter distance of the galaxies, over the range of magnitudes, is a bit of a giveaway really.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It certainly does, but is it the correct explanation?&nbsp; Anyone can explain an observed phenomena, but the intepretation of what your senses gather is not always correct.&nbsp; And, it would seem here, that interpreting what is seen on a processed 2d image can be misleading. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Hey man, </p><p>Anything that can offer an avenue of thought without having to create new particles and new properties of matter is worth investigating further,&nbsp;especially&nbsp;knowing how the stuff that is currently accepted came to be accepted.&nbsp; It was not given the investigation it deserved because of the main stream mindset where&nbsp;nobody seems to look back and check each other.&nbsp; I'm a simple guy, but I've seen enough math and physics to know bullshit when I see it.&nbsp; EMAG doesn't need black holes, singularities, carefully controled&nbsp;eleven dimensions, neutron stars, or dark energy.&nbsp; All it needs is the laws we know that work here on earth.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EMAG doesn't need black holes, singularities, carefully controled&nbsp;eleven dimensions, neutron stars, or dark energy.&nbsp; All it needs is the laws we know that work here on earth.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>So how does it explain the observations I mentioned in my 2 posts above? I will be interested to see if it can or not.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>