|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2006 : 09:20:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Observational data shows that based on the red shift of far distant galaxies (ie not local galaxies) you would find that we are the center of the universe. That is to say that all of the distant galaxies are moving way from us in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from earth). The BB theory says that if we were instead on one of those far distant galaxies say 10 billion light years away we would find that that galaxy also appears to be the center of the uuniverse. That is to say the inhabitants of that galaxy would measure that all of the far distant galaxies were moving away from them in a uniform manner (relative to the distance from the galxy).
And the only galaxies that did not have such a "view" would by those galaxies that were on the leading edge that were "surfing" the original shock wave. They might not have anything out in "front" of them. The rest of the galaxies would see distant and well as closeup objects and the most distant objects would had the most time to accelerate and would be traveling at the greatest speed.
quote:
The BS theory would not show this - it would show that some galaxies at the same distance from earth would have different red shifts.
And how do you know that they do not? In other words, the angle of the relative expansion is going to be directly related to the redshift we see from any galaxy. It should be noted however that the force of acceleration will not have accelerated the inside galaxies as much as the outside ones. The outside one should by and large be traveling faster than the inside ones.
quote:
This is a major point of the BB theory -
You can not point to a region of space and say, "that is where the center of the universe is". Wherever you take measurements in the universe that would appear to be the center of the universe. In other words, it would always appear that you are the center of the universe, no matter where you are.
It's all an issue of timing and the overall "scale" of the event furshur. Keep in mind this is very "simplified" example, and even in my original definition, these are "singularity systems", meaning whole galaxies could and would be sitting "outside" the singularity as the singularities began to interact. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 09:21:56 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 09:46:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Ok, Michael, I guess I have to bow out.
I would reconsider that decision if I were you. There is really no particular "mystery" here about relative speeds and angles of expansion. I'd say you already grasp the redshift idea pretty well, and there is no special skill required "interpret" this data. It's more a matter of understanding the model I'm trying to present here, not an issue with your interpretation of redshift as far as I can tell. Redshift is primarily a "relative speed" issue according to Hubble. Only if we get into Arp's redshifting ideas will you need to have any "special skills" of any sort. Most of these ideas are related to theoretically gravitational effects on photons, and/or scattering effects of light through "atmospheres". Redshiftting in a Hubble scheme of things is relatively straight forward, and you already seem to have a very good grasp of the idea.
quote:
Well, keep in mind that Dave-- as smart as he is-- isn't the final authority on cosmic inflation.
And Guth, as smart as he is, isn't the final authority on inflation either evidently, and he really made the idea "vogue" to begin with. I therefore see no "authorities" that can actually take us from the "metaphysical" realm into the physical realm. By that I mean there is no evidence suggesting an inflaton field exists or affects matter, so no human being can currently demonstrate such a thing took place.
quote:
My guess is that you're going to have to go after some slightly bigger foes in the field of cosmology before you slay the inflation beast.
I don't think that beast can be slayed in my lifetime frankly. It's so engrained into the creation mythos and the educational system that it will likely never be fully abandoned.
quote:
But again, your attitude towards inflation seems odd. Indeed, the constant reference to QM or GR not predicting it is unusual. My understanding is that inflation has nothing to do with either. QM doesn't predict my wasting 2 hours playing Urban Dead, but so what? It also didn't predict that Italy would win the World Cup (Forza Italia!), but again-- so what? Next time, when betting on the world cup, I'll use different predictors!
QM is pretty tightly related to particle physics in the sense that both theories attempt to explain what's going on at the subatomic level. No particle theory requires the existence of inflaton fields. No QM theory requires the existence of it either. The only place the concept is 'required' or mentioned is in the inflation stage of BB theory. In other words, the whole idea stems from one component of a a specific creation theory, it is not a natural extension or prediction of particle physics or QM. There is therefore no way to "justify" this field in terms of QM or particle physics. It's only necesarily for one theory to be "right". That to me suggests that the theory is "reaching" in the metaphysical realm, rather than trying to work with particles and fields that are known to exist or theorized to exist. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 10:02:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Once the difference in speed between two galaxies exceeds the speed of light, we are no longer able to see them.
In your theory, though, you stated, explicitly, that nothing ever exceeds the speed of light, Michael. The maximum possible speed for any particular galaxy away from the BS event is therefore 0.5c, so that two galaxies moving in opposite directions will never have a differential speed larger than c.quote:
In theory, we should see a "range" of redshifting that shows almost no redshift from neighboring galaxies like Andromeda, to redshifted galaxies that should be close to the speed of light.
Not if our field of view is small compared to the "explosion," as I already explained. If we only see a tiny fraction of it, then every galaxy we see will be moving roughly parallel to us, and no galaxy's speed compared to ours will be much different at all.quote:
We only "appear" to be near the center of what is a "very" large event and may have taken place over a reasonably long period of time.
Of course, the only way to get around the laws of thermodynamics in an "eternal" universe is to have an infinite amount of mass and energy it in to begin with, and thus an infinite size, and then we can only assume that the BS event happened infinitely long ago. So, regardless of how close or far from the "leading edge" we are, we're still an infinite distance from the "center," and so we should see zero differential movement between us and any other galaxy due to the expansion, and any movement we do see should be solely due to gravitational acceleration, and so the redshifting we measure should be random with respect to the distance between us and other galaxies.
This, of course, is not what we observe, and so something is wrong with this model. We could be at the exact center, which is infinitely improbable in a universe of infinite size. Or, the laws of thermodynamics could be wrong, the only possible way to have an eternal universe with finite matter and energy. Or, the premise that the universe is eternal could be wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 10:27:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ok, Michael, I guess I have to bow out.
I would reconsider that decision if I were you. There is really no particular "mystery" here about relative speeds and angles of expansion. I'd say you already grasp the redshift idea pretty well, and there is no special skill required "interpret" this data.
This is quite humorous, since Michael clearly does not understand red shift.
I don't know if you don't get it or if you don't want to get it because it completely is at odds with your BS theory. I hope you read Dave's post as it again has a bit of a different slant on the red shift you would see relative to the expansion of space or an explosion of matter.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to understand though...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 10:58:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In your theory, though, you stated, explicitly, that nothing ever exceeds the speed of light, Michael.
Ok.
quote:
The maximum possible speed for any particular galaxy away from the BS event is therefore 0.5c, so that two galaxies moving in opposite directions will never have a differential speed larger than c.
Actually the greatest *differential* is 1.0C, and that would also be the maximum possible speed. I have no idea how fast our galaxy is moving, but if it were say .2C, then we could not see anything moving greater than .8C moving in the opposite direction. If the galaxy were traveling parallel to us, it could theoretically reach near .9C and so could our own galaxy and we would still "see it". The maximum speed is c, not .5c.
quote:
Not if our field of view is small compared to the "explosion," as I already explained.
First there is no guarantee that our field of view is "small". Secondly, I think you're mistaken. Even if our field of view was relatively small, and far away from the original event, the closest galaxies would be those which are traviling *roughly* in our direction, whereas the furthers galaxies would be those that had a vectored direction that was greater than one that was close. Therefore it would be "further away", and probably redshifted to a greater degree. If the angle was too great, the speed difference exceeds c, and we never see it.
quote:
If we only see a tiny fraction of it, then every galaxy we see will be moving roughly parallel to us, and no galaxy's speed compared to ours will be much different at all.
It would entirely depend on the vectored direction it travels Dave. Even a "little" difference in direction will eventually turn into a major difference in distance, and a major increase in speed overtime assuming that all galaxies are accelerating.
quote:
Of course, the only way to get around the laws of thermodynamics in an "eternal" universe is to have an infinite amount of mass and energy it in to begin with, and thus an infinite size, and then we can only assume that the BS event happened infinitely long ago. So, regardless of how close or far from the "leading edge" we are, we're still an infinite distance from the "center," and so we should see zero differential movement between us and any other galaxy due to the expansion, and any movement we do see should be solely due to gravitational acceleration, and so the redshifting we measure should be random with respect to the distance between us and other galaxies.
No. Any angular difference in their expansion will still result in a different travel path, a different distance, and a different differential speed difference between them. The slam implies a *lack* of infinity and a centralized beginning to *this* specific area of matter and space.
quote:
This, of course, is not what we observe, and so something is wrong with this model. We could be at the exact center, which is infinitely improbable in a universe of infinite size. Or, the laws of thermodynamics could be wrong, the only possible way to have an eternal universe with finite matter and energy. Or, the premise that the universe is eternal could be wrong.
What's wrong from my perspective is your desire to "group" all the galaxies travling in this general direction. In other words, you aren't allowing them to continue to scatter and continue to accelerate with distance. That's the problem as I see it. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 11:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
This is quite humorous, since Michael clearly does not understand red shift.
I don't know if you don't get it or if you don't want to get it because it completely is at odds with your BS theory.
I think it's you that don't "get it" probably because you don't wish to "get it". I hope you read my response to Dave and consider it.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to understand though.. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 11:44:59 [Permalink]
|
To put my point in a different way, in a radial expansion of objects from a central point, with us on object A, the differential speed at which we will view any neighbor due only to the expansion will be S=R/D, where D is the distance between us and the center of expansion, and R is the distance between us and some particular neighbor. In other words, so long as R is less than D, the differential speed between us and some neighbor will always be less than our speed away from the center of expansion.
So, if we can see 10 billion light years, and we're 20 billion light years from the center of expansion, then the objects at our limit of vision will be seen to be moving away from us (redshifted) at S=0.5, or half of whatever our velocity is. Since those galaxies appear to be moving at 0.9c or more, this would mean that our velocity away from the center of expansion is at least 1.8c, a clear contradiction to the stimpulation that nothing moves faster than lightspeed.
As we increase D, without increasing R, S gets smaller, approaching 0 - meaning the difference in speed of all the objects around us will be smaller and smaller as we get farther from the center. If R is 10 Gly still, but D is 100 Gly, then we won't see anything moving away from us at more than one-tenth of our velocity, so an 0.9c redshift would mean that we're zooming along at 9.0c. If we increase D to 1,000 Gly, but keep everything else the same, then we're allegedly moving at 90c!
Only by having D being much smaller than R - near the center of the "explosion" - can we see 0.9c redshifts without them violating the speed limit you set, Michael. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 11:58:08 [Permalink]
|
So there really seems to be a problem in how your theory (with the unfortunate abbreviation BS) addresses redshift, Michael-- at least, as I understand both redshift and the BS.
Hubble's Law, as near as I can tell, says that redshift is proportional to distance. There's a formula here, which gives us v=H0D, where v is is the recessional velocity due to redshift, typically expressed in km/s. The H0 is Hubble's constant. This value is the same throughout the universe for a given conformal time, and is right around 70 (km/s)/Mpc, +2.4/-3.2. D is the proper distance that the light had traveled from the galaxy in the rest frame of the observer, measured in megaparsecs: Mpc. Anyhow, according to this, the farther away something is, the bigger the shift. Moreover, everything is moving away from us in more or less the same way.
But this isn't what the BS theory says (unless I'm mistaken). Let's go back to the police car analogy and say that we have 360 cars all with sirens and arranged in a circle pointing outwards from that circle. This would represent the area where the BS happened. At a certain point-- when the BS galaxies spread away from eachother after the slam-- all the cars drive off, sirens a-blarin'. Moreover, each car drives off in a direction that is one degree different from each of the cars next to it. Thus, one car is driving off due north, while the one 90 cars to the right of him is driving due east, and the one 180 cars to the right is actually driving due south.
So far, so good, right?
The problem comes in that if we're in that car heading due north, the redshift (if we pretend that the sirens represent light) for the cars to the immediate right and left of us will be almost zero. The redshift for the car going due south would be quite great. Yes, there is a relationship between distance and redshift. But is it constant? Could you plug in the numbers to v=H0D and would it fit the model of cars driving off?
I'm not that good at math, so perhaps some people so inclined could help me out. In any case, it would be a way to test BS pretty easily. We could even abandon the car analogy and go straight to the real deal. But again, I'm out of my league so some other math/science people would have to help with this. However, it seems to me that we should be able to come up with a formula that would tell us what we would expect for an object at a location X according to BS theory, and then see if that fits with Hubble's Law. Right? |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:09:28 [Permalink]
|
Sorry to hop in without reading all this but...
If the spaces between the galaxies are growing then we can move faster than light relative to those galaxies with enough space between them and us.
Take these 26 galaxies all lined up in our expanding universe. the distance from A and Z being about 200BLY,
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
If the space between each letter is growing at say .1c then A and Z are moving apart at 2.5c relative to each other. And of course you need to factor in their actual velocities on top of that. Problem is we can only see 13BLY in any direction and must fanagel the data from elsewhere.
Hell I think about this everyday and it still confuses me, explaining it to others is even harder, I think I'll go have a drink. Ill find a decent analagy at the bottom of the cup. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:18:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Actually the greatest *differential* is 1.0C, and that would also be the maximum possible speed. I have no idea how fast our galaxy is moving, but if it were say .2C, then we could not see anything moving greater than .8C moving in the opposite direction. If the galaxy were traveling parallel to us, it could theoretically reach near .9C and so could our own galaxy and we would still "see it". The maximum speed is c, not .5c.
Not if the expansion away from a central "slam" is radially symmetrical, Michael. Work the geometry yourself if you won't believe my results.
quote:
First there is no guarantee that our field of view is "small".
If our field of view is "large" relative to the size of the "explosion," then we are near the center, because we don't see any edge.quote:
Secondly, I think you're mistaken. Even if our field of view was relatively small, and far away from the original event, the closest galaxies would be those which are traviling *roughly* in our direction, whereas the furthers galaxies would be those that had a vectored direction that was greater than one that was close. Therefore it would be "further away", and probably redshifted to a greater degree.
Yes, but how much? Look, if we can see a galaxy 10 Gly away, perpendicular to our path away from the center, and we're ten million Gly from the center of the explosion, then the differential speed at which we see that galaxy will be one millionth of whatever our velocity is. Even if we're at lightspeed, we will only see that other very-far-away galaxy receeding at a measely 299.8 meters per second. That's how the geometry of uniform radial expansion works.
quote:
If the angle was too great, the speed difference exceeds c, and we never see it.
The speed difference can never exceed c, Michael. You said so yourself.
quote:
It would entirely depend on the vectored direction it travels Dave. Even a "little" difference in direction will eventually turn into a major difference in distance, and a major increase in speed overtime assuming that all galaxies are accelerating.
How can they all be accelerating away from each other? Imagine a ring of galaxies expanding away from the central spot. If they were simply given an initial push and left to coast, you'd see uniform radial expansion, and every galaxy would measure the recessional speed of its neighbors as being uniform. But in order for them to be accelerating, there would have to be an exponentially increasing circumference to the ring of galaxies, since otherwise they'd look just like they're coasting (constant velocity, zero acceleration).
If they're all accelerating away from the central part, in order to allow for acceleration away from each other, then at some point in time something will be travelling at greater than 1.0c relative to something else, which you said doesn't happen in your model.
quote:
No. Any angular difference in their expansion will still result in a different travel path, a different distance, and a different differential speed difference between them. The slam implies a *lack* of infinity and a centralized beginning to *this* specific area of matter and space.
Define "*this* specific area of matter and space." General Relativity posits that spacetime is the entire universe... oh, that's right, you've discarded General Relativity in your model.
Right, so once again I need to ask you, Michael: how far is it between this universe and the next nearest universe?
quote:
What's wrong from my perspective is your desire to "group" all the galaxies travling in this general direction. In other words, you aren't allowing them to continue to scatter and continue to accelerate with distance. That's the problem as I see it.
The only constraint I'm putting on is the limit to how far we can see, Michael. That piece of data is what "groups" the galaxies together. If the entire explosion has a radius a million times larger than our telescopes can view, then we will be "stuck" in the middle of a group of galaxies representing no more than 0.000000000000000001 of the entire volume. If that teensy-weensy amount of the whole universe that we can see with today's pitiful telescopes is anywhere away from the center, then the group of galaxies we can see would be moving nearly parallel to one another through space, the angles of divergence from the central spot would be nearly zero, and so the speed we see even the farthest galaxies moving away from us would be tiny. That's the geometry you're suggesting.
And if you add acceleration into the mix, you're just going to run up against your universal speed limit, and quickly. More than that, because the galaxies directly ahead of us on our path away from the "slam" event are necessarily moving faster than us (they've had longer to accelerate), then as our galaxy approaches lightspeed, the galaxies ahead would necessarily have to slow down from our point of view, since otherwise they'd exceeed lightspeed relative to the center we all left (or even relative to the galaxies "behind" us). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:25:10 [Permalink]
|
| Last I heard it was 0.5% of the actual volume that is visible, roughly. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:27:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it's you that don't "get it" probably because you don't wish to "get it". I hope you read my response to Dave and consider it.
Very well Michael. Please point out where I am wrong in what I said. I am very interested to hear which parts of my explanation of redshift indicated that I don't get it.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:32:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Last I heard it was 0.5% of the actual volume that is visible, roughly.
Ya, and that is the key issue. We're only looking a small piece of a very large pie. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:35:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If the spaces between the galaxies are growing then we can move faster than light relative to those galaxies with enough space between them and us.
This is absolutely correct Papa, however Michael does not believe that space expands, as a matter of fact Michael does not believe that any space exists that is not filled with particles or energy.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 07/11/2006 12:35:44 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2006 : 12:45:00 [Permalink]
|
| I'll tackle these posts as I get time today. I do however feel compelled to point out again that not every galaxy moves away from us at the hubble constant, and we do not know what every view from every position might look like. We only know what our own view looks like, and we really don't know where we sit in the grand scheme of things. Any arguement that begins with the premise that "all the galaxies have to have the same view we do" is going to be automatically disqualified in my book. We can't know such a thing because we only know what *we* see from here. We could be positioned near the center of the expansion. We would be positioned near the middle of the expanding waves. We could be positioned somewhere near an outer edge somewhere. All of these positioning variables could directly affect what we see, and it is inapprorprate to "assume" what the view might look like from any other perspective. We don't know. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/11/2006 12:46:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
