Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas wrote: "...For this reason its easier to quote ABS that I agree with..."

If you were to quote a specific statement or line of reasoning in an abstract, attribute it to the author(s), link it to the underlying research paper, and explain - in your own words - how the statement or line of reasoning fits with your own views, that would be reasonable.

Posting multiple abstracts verbatim that you seemingly don't understand - or haven't read - is not reasonable. I think most of us would prefer to hear your ideas and then discuss the research and researchers that have led you to your point of view. We all know that there are alternative theories about the nature of the universe. We're interested in learning why you find one (or more) of them preferable to the Standard Model that has gained wide acceptance among researchers and theorists.

Chris

 

[dangineer]

I have to agree with Chris. I would love to get in on this conversation, as it is a very interesting. But I don't have time to look at a lot of scientific papers on the subject . Abstracts aren't a whole lot better either, because they're usually very specific to the results of the paper, which repesents a small part of the subject, and usually don't go into the impact the observation has on the overall picture. It would be nice if members would briefly and clearly state their interpretations and the overall signifcance, then they can cite their sources and we can read them later.

Here's an example:

Instead of posting this:
"Abstract: A solution to the dark matter problem is set forth in the framework of reductive semiclassical gravity, i.e., semiclassical gravity involving quantum state reduction. In that theory, the Einstein equation includes the energy-momentum tensor originating from pseudomatter and partially compensating for quantum jumps of the matter energy-momentum tensor. The compensation ensures the continuity of metric and of its first time derivative. Pseudomatter is actualized as pseudodust and perceived as a dark matter. The necessity of compensating for quantum jumps makes pseudomatter, i.e., dark matter of such a form, an indispensable rather than ad hoc element of the theory. Applications: The Schwarzschild solution with pseudomatter, pseudomatter halo, collapse involving pseudomatter, pseudomatter in the FLRW universe."

You can say: "some scientists have proposed a theory where pseudomatter is included in GR and this pseudomatter manifests itself as dark matter." Then you can go on to explain briefly what pseudomatter is. Then when people have questions about how this theory accounts for certain observed properties of dark matter, a very interesting discussion will evolve and all will be happy. That might actually entice people to read the articles since the person posting it has already broke the idea down into pieces that can easily be digested.

Just a thought...

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Chris said

Posting multiple abstracts verbatim that you seemingly don't understand - or haven't read - is not reasonable. I think most of us would prefer to hear your ideas and then discuss the research and researchers that have led you to your point of view. We all know that there are alternative theories about the nature of the universe. We're interested in learning why you find one (or more) of them preferable to the Standard Model that has gained wide acceptance among researchers and theorists.

"Seemingly do not understand" Excuse me

How do I explain to you people the complexity of the universe, Stage formation, star phases, star evolution , Transients, galaxy formation and the complexity of cluster of cluster of galaxies that from super clusters and not to mention compact matter.

Than I get silly statements that I do not understand the simple papers that I post.

The papers that I post are quite interesting and I wanted to share the reading.

 

[SpeedFreek]

How does this.....

"Seemingly do not understand" Excuse me

How do I explain to you people the complexity of the universe, Stage formation, star phases, star evolution , Transients, galaxy formation and the complexity of cluster of cluster of galaxies that from super clusters and not to mention compact matter.

Than I get silly statements that I do not understand the simple papers that I post.

The papers that I post are quite interesting and I wanted to share the reading.

...make sense when compared to this?

In this forum there is no way in proving what ever model you go for.

The only thing we can do is really and refer to papers written by others and pay them respect for their work.

The bottom line is this, I know that I'm not a smart cookie and I know I need to read more and the more I read I realize how little we know and what we know.

To add to that, I'm dislexic and thats a problem. For this reason its easier to quote ABS that I agree with.

You say you are not a smart cookie and you know you need to read more in order to understand the subject. I have already explained concepts to you that you did not seem to understand at the beginning of this thread. And yet, when you are questioned on the relevance of some of the abstracts you are posting, you seem to be claiming you fully understand not only these "simple" papers, but the complexity of the universe?!? Come on now. :roll:

You say the only thing we can do is refer to papers written by others and respect them for their work? Ok then, well in that case we can find many more papers that support the Big-Bang cosmology than you can find papers that support a different model.

There is a reason that the mainstream consensus is towards the Big-Bang - it is because it is the scientific model that fits many more of our observations than any other. Sure, there are overlaps with different theories when considering certain observations (such as is evidenced by some of the abstracts you post), but none of those theories can explain as many of our observations as the Big-Bang model - if they did, the mainstream consensus would end up in their favour. This is why you are being asked how the papers you are posting affect the big picture.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Rather then reading my words out of context.

Use more science to explain your thoughts.

What I know and what I do not know is not important.

As for the BBT I have read more papers on it than you can imagine. For this reason I feel that the evidence given to support the BBT is not founded.


Lets take one simple cluster of galaxies.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources ... sters.html

This galaxy cluster looks like a star cluster. The difference is that each dot is a galaxy with billions of stars. This complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs unless you use ad hoc theories to make it work. Just by comparing the formation of our Sun and its possible evolution (phase changes) from a Supernova remnnant would have taken close to 10 Gyrs. One more thing, you will notice a clustering effect, a common law in space and not galaxies moving away from each other.

The explanation used by Chandra lacks understanding of cluster galaxy formation and the understanding of compact matter.

Ok! you say main stream is correct or a model to follow. Than show me evidence by observation that this model is the one to follow.

 

[SpeedFreek]

This complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs unless you use ad hoc theories to make it work. Just by comparing the formation of our Sun and its possible evolution (phase changes) from a Supernova remnnant would have taken close to 10 Gyrs.

On what do you base this assertion?

Ok! you say main stream is correct or a model to follow. Than show me evidence by observation that this model is the one to follow.

The observed large-scale homogeneity shown by the various redshift surveys, including the data from SDSS.

The linearity of the Hubble law:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9604143 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9707260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9805201 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0402512

The abundances of light elements:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706069 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9405022 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0407176

And as a result of Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, the existence of the CMBR:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9810373 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0012222

The fluctuations in the CMBR:
http://background.uchicago.edu/
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html

The large-scale structure:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6871
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209208
http://www.virgo.dur.ac.uk/

The ages of stars:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0407524 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0401443
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0103450 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0403293

Galactic Evolution:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/07/text/

In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

Time-dilation in supernova light-curves:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9605134
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0104382
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0309368

Tolman tests:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0102213 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0102214
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0106563 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0106566

The "Sunyaev-Zel'dovich" effect:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/B ... rk9_1.html
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/B ... k11_1.html

The "Integrated Sachs-Wolfe" effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0307335
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0308260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0305097

That should do, for starters!

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

LMAO, I was waiting for that Speedfreak

 

[csmyth3025]

SpeedFreek,

Thanks for that avalanche of abstracts. I think both you and harrycostas have made your points: we can fill page after page of this thread with links to papers exploring one side or the other of the various disputed observations and interpretations related to the concept of an expanding universe (the so-called Standard Model) vs the Steady State Model.
At this point I'm guessing that harrycostas is proposing that the Steady State Model provides a more reasonable explanation - but I'm unclear on this and I'd prefer that he weigh in on this question with a clear statement that this is, in fact, his view.

One point that harrycostas keeps coming back to is the prevalence of galaxy clusters throughout our observable universe.
I can't figure out why this observation would have an effect on either Model. Is there anything in the Standard Model or the Steady State Model that either favors or precludes the formation of galaxy clusters? My understanding is that our observation of a "lumpy" universe is compatible with both models.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Thank you for that speedfreek

Although I read most of these papers I will come back to you.

Hello Chris

Mate look at the groups and clusters of galaxies and try to understand their complexity and if you think that a supercluster of galaxies ( over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years, I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work.

Something is cooking at the OK barn.

 

[noblackhole]

TheOneRaven cited this:

"Clifford M. Will wrote:Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eotvos experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. "

Now Einstein's Principle of Equivalence and his Special Theory of Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses (see my earlier post). According to Einstein and his followers both his Principle of Equivalence and his Special Theory of Relativity must manifest in small regions of his gravitational field and these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Thus, neither the Principle of Equivalence nor the laws of Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But the alleged field equations Ric = 0 describe a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and so Ric = 0 is inadmissible for violation of the foregoing physical requirements. It immediately follows that the total energy of Einstein's gravitational field is always zero, so that Einstein gravitational waves are impossible, so that the Einstein tensor and the energy-momentum tensor must vanish identically, and so that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum. Since the usual conservation of energy and momentum is very well established by experiment, Einstein's field equations are in conflict with the experimental evidence on a deeper level, and therefore fail. This takes with it the big BANG fantasy, and all the other fantasies associated with General Relativity.

Observational data for the alleged big BANG is spurious. Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille has revealed this in no uncertain terms in two recent papers, which I previously cited. Here they are again:

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

WMAP and COBE have produced almost no valid scientific data. The WMAP and COBE teams have be caught deliberately cooking their data books to manufacture the result they want. Smoot's "wrinkles in the fabric of time" are nothing but ghost remnants of signal processing. Smoot systematically removed the galactic foreground, the dipole signal and quadrupole signal in order to "find" a signal that is ~1000 times smaller than the contamination. His systematic signal processing introduced systematic remnants of his signal processing, and he mistakes these introduced ghost signals for data - his alleged multipole anisotropies. Talk about incompetence.

The COBE-FIRAS team allege the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured, hailed by the astrophysical scientists as a triumph that proves their CMB and big BANG. Really? Not the truth by any stretch of the imagination. The FIRAS instrument is so riddled with faults and shortcomings that its data is not worth the paper it's written on. Their most perfect blackbody spectrum is not a direct measurement of the sky, but a comparison of the sky with the external calibrator Xcal. Owing to significant design shortcomings, the sky undoubtedly leaks into the external calibrator Xcal, and so the sky ends up being compared to itself. The FIRAS team will always get a blackbody spectrum if the sky dominates the external calibration because they assume a blackbody for the sky and for Xcal. But they never even got a proper null, and so they deliberately doctored the data to get one. And all the errors they couldn't doctor they moved into their calibration files! The COBE-FIRAS team is telling tall tales.

 

[csmyth3025]

Noblaccckhple wrote: "...Since the usual conservation of energy and momentum is very well established by experiment, Einstein's field equations are in conflict with the experimental evidence on a deeper level, and therefore fail...."

On a simpler level, is there another theory that explains the precession of the orbit of Mercury?

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I'm still reading speadfreek's links,

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I think he posted them so that I could go away and read. Most I have read before.

It will take me another day or so, interesting reading regardless.

=============================

Hello noblackholes

What is your opinion?
Do you think the universe is expanding, accelerating or just doing what it does with contractions and backreactions or what ever.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Mate look at the groups and clusters of galaxies and try to understand their complexity and if you think that a supercluster of galaxies ( over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years, I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work.

Show me any observation we have made of a supercluster containing over 100 billion galaxies, with a redshift of z=10 (which is the redshift for the figures you gave).

In my post full of links above, the quote from the galaxy structure section is referring to protogalaxies with redshifts of around z=7 or so:

there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting.

Hardly a supercluster. And this is at 12.9 Gyrs. These are the most distant (in time) galaxies we have seen.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

Then educate yourself

Research deep field images and get the facts.

Do I have to give you this information?

Go to the hubble site.

Go to Chandra site look at the complexity of galaxy clusters.

 

[noblackhole]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Hello noblackholes

What is your opinion?
Do you think the universe is expanding, accelerating or just doing what it does with contractions and backreactions or what ever.

Hi Harry. As I have pointed out here in previous posts, all claims of recessional velocities are based upon measurements of spectral shifts and application of the Doppler hypothesis. The Hubble-Humason relation was adduced by them as a red-shift/distance relation not as a red-shift/recessional-velocity relation. Slipher's measurements of spectral shifts too, are interpreted by the astrophysical scientists in terms of the Doppler hypothesis. The claim for recessional velocities stands or falls upon the validity of the hypothesis. There is however no ancillary observational evidence to corroborate the hypothesis. The astrophysical scientists interpret the red shifts in terms of Doppler because they want their big BANG theory to stand. Furthermore, the notion of expansion of the universe comes from General Relativity in terms of the alleged big BANG cosmology. However, the big BANG theory has no valid basis in General Relativity owing to the fact that Einstein's theory violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and therefore fails (see my previous posts). Big BANG has no legs to stand on.

Moreover, the alleged signature of the big BANG, the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), claimed by the astrophysical scientists to have been detected by WMAP and COBE, has not been detected by those satellites at all. COBE and WMAP have produced no valid scientific data other than detection of a dipole signal. Prof. Robitaille (see the papers I have cited) has revealed in fine detail that the COBE and WMAP teams have deliberately falsified their data sets in order to get the outcome the astrophysical scientists want. Water is well-known to be a significant absorber in the microwave and far infrared bands, known at sea on submarines and at home in microwave ovens. Water is therefore also a significant emitter of microwave and far infrared radiation. This is due to the hydrogen and the hydroxyl bonds in water. Approximately 70% of the surface of the Earth is covered by water. The oceans of the Earth are not enclosed, and so their thermal emission profiles do not correspond to their true temperatures. Emissions from the oceans are scattered in the atmosphere, producing, in steady state conditions, a pool of atmospheric photons from an initial anisotropic source (the oceans) that does not bear the temperature of the oceans themselves. The COBE RF shield is so poorly constructed that it permits significant diffraction of atmospheric photons into its detector (FIRAS). The lower frequency photons are the most strongly diffracted into the detector. Prof. Robitaille concludes that COBE (and WMAP) detect atmospheric photons emitted mostly by the oceans initially, and so the so-called CMB is in reality an EMB, i.e. Earth Microwave Background. Scattering in the atmosphere provides the mechanism for an ~3 K isotropic thermal profile from photons emitted by the anisotropic oceans (which are not at ~ 3 K). Smoot himself, a principal investigator for the COBE DMR (i.e. Differential Microwave Radiometers), reported that when testing a radiometer in a parking lot at Berkeley, "An invisible patch of water vapor drifted overhead; the scanner showed a rise in temperature. Good: this meant the instrument was working, because water vapor was a source of stray radiation." (see Smoot G. and Davidson K. 'Wrinkles in time: witness to the birth of the Universe', Harper Perennial, New York, N.Y., 1993.)

Anybody who carefully studies the papers by Prof. Robitaille can see for himself that there is no doubt that WMAP and COBE are dead ducks.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day noblackhole

You may find this interesting by Prof Hilton

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm
A Review of Anomalous Redshift Data

Abstract
One of the greatest challenges facing astrophysics is derivation of remoteness in cosmological objects. At large scales, it is almost entirely dependent upon the well-established Hubble relationship in spectral redshift. The comparison of galactic redshifts with distances arrived at by other means within the local group has yielded a useable curve to an acceptable confidence level, and the assumption of scale invariance allows the adoption of redshift as a standard calibration of cosmological distance. However, there have been several fields of study in observational astronomy that consistently give apparently anomalous results from ever-larger statistical samples, and would thus seem to require further careful investigation. This paper presents a review summary of recent independent work, primarily (for galaxies and proto-galaxies) by teams led by, respectively, D. G. Russell[1], M. Lopez-Corredoira[2], and H. C. Arp[3], and for galaxy clusters and large-scale structures, those of N. A. Bahcall[4] and A. Kravstov[5]. Included also are several other important contributions that will be fully cited in the text. The observational evidence is presented here per se without attempting theoretical conclusions or extrapolating the data to cosmology.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Mate look at the groups and clusters of galaxies and try to understand their complexity and if you think that a supercluster of galaxies ( over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years, I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work.

Show me any observation we have made of a supercluster containing over 100 billion galaxies, with a redshift of z=10 (which is the redshift for the figures you gave).

In my post full of links above, the quote from the galaxy structure section is referring to protogalaxies with redshifts of around z=7 or so:

there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting.

Hardly a supercluster. And this is at 12.9 Gyrs. These are the most distant (in time) galaxies we have seen.

G'day speedfreek

Then educate yourself

Research deep field images and get the facts.

Do I have to give you this information?

Go to the hubble site.

Go to Chandra site look at the complexity of galaxy clusters.

Look, I know about the complexity of galaxy clusters. How dare you tell me educate myself when you are talking such nonsense! I have been researching this subject for years and I know that the most distant galaxy we have seen (which is an odd and dim looking blob, gravitationally lensed - not a cluster of 100 billion galaxies!) has a lookback time of around 12.9 billion years.

We have not seen superclusters containing 100 billion galaxies whose light is 13.2 billion years old. We have seen a few dim, gravitationally lensed blobs, at 13 billion years or less.

STOP TALKING NONSENSE - YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

This is the galaxy with the highest confirmed and accepted redshift so far. It is not part of a cluster of 100 billion galaxies.

The number density of galaxies at z approximately 7 seems to be only 18–36 per cent of the density at z = 6.6

And this is the most distant "thing" we have observed, a gamma ray burst which was initially estimated to be at z=8.2 but has since been revised downwards to around z=7.6. We have seen nothing substantial at z=10, and we have definitely not seen clusters of 100 billion galaxies there as you claim.

I would most respectfully request that you go and get an education yourself.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Anybody who carefully studies the papers by Prof. Robitaille can see for himself that there is no doubt that WMAP and COBE are dead ducks.

Well, in that case we will have to see what data PLANCK gives us, won't we? It is far more sensitive than any experiment that has gone before, and should easily show if the Earths oceans contaminated the earlier experiments.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

If you know anything about deep field images and the number of galaxies estimated by the hubble site you would not be asking.

You read my words out of context. No one cluster of galaxies contains 100 billion galaxies unless you place the total known universe into one super dooper cluster.

So again look at the deep field North and South for further information. If you cannot find it than I will give you that information.

Here are some links just incase. I have hundreds of images in the computer.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0113.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Matur ... y_Way.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2004/07/

From these links you will be able to calculate the potential number of galaxies.

Galaxies usually are grouped into clusters.

Our MW is part of a local cluster that is grouped to a larger cluster of clusters of galaxies that form part of a super cluster.

 

[csmyth3025]

SpeedFreek wrote: "...In my post full of links above, the quote from the galaxy structure section is referring to protogalaxies with redshifts of around z=7 or so..."

I'll have to do some research on the meaning of "z", but my uniformed take on this term is that it refers to the extent to which a particular spectral line is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Also, I guess that this "z" is used to estimate the distance from Earth to the object observed. This distance is also a measure of the time that's elapsed since the light was emitted by the object and the time now that we're receiving that light due to the finite speed of light.

This use of spectral line shift to estimate distances is, as I understand it, the essence of the Hubble constant (H_o). The existence of this redshift/distance relationship (~70 km/sec/Mps) isn't in dispute, as far as I can tell, in this thread. The velocity component of this relationship is merely a convenient notational format of what the redshift (z) would be if it were attributed to a recessional velocity (Doppler shift).

Whether this redshift is actually the result of recessional velocity (Doppler shift) is apparently the at the center of the dispute in this thread. Is my understanding of this controversy correct, or have I missed something?

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

If you know anything about deep field images and the number of galaxies estimated by the hubble site you would not be asking.

You read my words out of context. No one cluster of galaxies contains 100 billion galaxies unless you place the total known universe into one super dooper cluster.

What other context is there, for this statement you made below?

Hello Chris

Mate look at the groups and clusters of galaxies and try to understand their complexity and if you think that a supercluster of galaxies ( over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs can form in just 500 million years, I'd love to know how without ad hoc theories to make it work.

Something is cooking at the OK barn.

You are now backtracking.

First you claim that there is a supercluster of galaxies (over 100 billion galaxies) located at 13.2 Gyrs, which must have formed in just 500 million years, and we must use ad hoc theories to explain its existence.

Now you claim no one cluster contains 100 billion galaxies unless you include the whole contents of the universe.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I should add here that the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image contains around 10,000 galaxies, with redshifts ranging from z<1 to z>7. There are a lot of "foreground" objects (low redshift), and where those objects were directly between the telescope and a background object, the more distant object is gravitationally lensed by the foreground object, which allows us to see it. Galaxies at z=1 are NOT part of a supercluster that also contains galaxies at z=7.

 

[SpeedFreek]

SpeedFreek wrote: "...In my post full of links above, the quote from the galaxy structure section is referring to protogalaxies with redshifts of around z=7 or so..."

I'll have to do some research on the meaning of "z", but my uniformed take on this term is that it refers to the extent to which a particular spectral line is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Also, I guess that this "z" is used to estimate the distance from Earth to the object observed. This distance is also a measure of the time that's elapsed since the light was emitted by the object and the time now that we're receiving that light due to the finite speed of light.

This use of spectral line shift to estimate distances is, as I understand it, the essence of the Hubble constant (H_o). The existence of this redshift/distance relationship (~70 km/sec/Mps) isn't in dispute, as far as I can tell, in this thread. The velocity component of this relationship is merely a convenient notational format of what the redshift (z) would be if it were attributed to a recessional velocity (Doppler shift).

Whether this redshift is actually the result of recessional velocity (Doppler shift) is apparently the at the center of the dispute in this thread. Is my understanding of this controversy correct, or have I missed something?

Chris

I wish I knew what exactly harry is disputing. As far as I can tell, he somehow sees galaxies clustering together everywhere in the universe, including back at 500 million years after the Big-Bang (a redshift of z=10), where we only see the dim blobs of protogalaxies, and assumes these non-existent clusters are evidence against the expansion of the universe.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=redshift+z%3D10

Why the Light Travel Time Distance should not be used in Press Releases

 

[csmyth3025]

SpeedFreek,

Previously I wrote: "...Also, I guess that this "z" is used to estimate the distance from Earth to the object observed...:

I stand corrected. A review of the original paper submitted by Hubble (per your link) and a reading of the wikipedia article on "redshifts" found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift indicates that the parameter "z" is, indeed, an indicator of radial velocity. The estimated distances to the observed object are obtained by the use of "standard candles" such as Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovas (in those instances where distance estimates are possible).

From the Wikipedia article: "...Redshift (and blue shift) may be characterized by the relative difference between the observed and emitted wavelengths (or frequency) of an object. In astronomy, it is customary to refer to this change using a dimensionless quantity called z..." and "...For example, Doppler effect blue shifts (z < 0) are associated with objects approaching (moving closer to) the observer with the light shifting to greater energies. Conversely, Doppler effect redshifts (z > 0) are associated with objects receding (moving away) from the observer with the light shifting to lower energies...."

There is a lot of good information in this article which I wont quote since you're probably already familiar with it. There is one passage which has direct bearing on the subject of this thread which I will quote, however:

"...The redshift due to expansion of the universe depends upon the recessional velocity in a fashion determined by the cosmological model chosen to describe the expansion of the universe, which is very different from how Doppler redshift depends upon local velocity. Harrison provides a summary of this and related distinctions.[32] Describing the cosmological expansion origin of redshift, Harrison says: “Light leaves a galaxy, which is stationary in its local region of space, and is eventually received by observers who are stationary in their own local region of space. Between the galaxy and the observer, light travels through vast regions of expanding space. As a result, all wavelengths of the light are stretched by the expansion of space..."

The article is very specific that the effect of cosmological redshift - and the way velocities and distances are calculated based on redshifts attributed to it - is distinctly different, and produce distinctly different results, from redshifts attributed to a Doppler redshift that "...depends upon local velocity...".

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes, so the apparently superluminal recession velocities associated with high redshift objects are an illusion of course, which is why they should always be referred to as apparent, rather than absolute.

The simplest way to think of cosmological redshift is that 1+z = the cosmic scale factor.

So at a redshift of z=7, the universe was 8 times smaller than it is today. When the CMBR was emitted (z=1089), the universe was 1090 times smaller than it is today.

When we look at objects with a redshift of z=1, we are seeing the universe as it was when it was half its current size.

The amount that the wavelength of the light is "stretched" during its journey, tells us how much the universe has expanded during its journey.

Here is a little list of the different distance measures used in the current mainstream model of the expanding universe.

Light-travel time.

z=0.1___a galaxy whose light is 1.2 billion years old.
z=0.5___a galaxy whose light is 5 billion years old.
z=1____a galaxy whose light is 7.7 billion years old.
z=1.4___a galaxy whose light is 9.1 billion years old.
z=7_____a galaxy whose light is 12.9 billion years old
z=1089___the CMBR, which is 13.7 billion years old.


Angular diameter distance.

z=0.1___a galaxy that was 1.2 billion light-years away
z=0.5___a galaxy that was 4 billion light years away
z=1____a galaxy that was 5.4 billion light years away
z=1.4___a galaxy that was 5.7 billion light-years away
z=7_____a galaxy that was 3.5 billion light-years away
z=1089___a CMBR photon that was emitted 42 million light-years away.


Comoving distance.

z=0.1___a coordinate that has receded to 1.35 billion light-years away.
z=0.5___a coordinate that has receded to 6.1 billion light-years away.
z=1____a coordinate that has receded to 10.8 billion light-years away.
z=1.4___a coordinate that has receded to 13.8 billion light-years away.
z=7_____a coordinate that has receded to 29 billion light-years away.
z=1089___a coordinate that has receded to 46.5 billion light-years away.

Cosmic scale factor.

z=0.1___the universe was 0.909 times its current size
z=0.5___the universe was 0.667 times its current size
z=1_____the universe was 0.5 times its current size
z=1.4___the universe was 0.417 times its current size
z=7_____the universe was 0.125 times its current size
z=1089___the universe was 0.000917 times its current size

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozz

Speedfreek spend more time trying to understand the deep field links.

10,000 galaxies in one small area deep field when calaculated for the total sky you get over 100 billion galaxies.

As for redshift data and the expanding universe, you will need to further research as to their value.

Most papers assume that the BBT is correct then proceed to fit the data.

In time you will understand this.

May I suggest you start to research on galaxy evolution and star formation.

I assume you are a smart cookie.


Redshift data is taken from supernova so called explosions. They do not understand the intrinsic magnetic and gravitational waves that carry EMR from the point of origin that makes it look reshifted and accelerating away. This information is not new and can be researched.