The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: New Theory entitled residual cosmological redshift:  (Read 495 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
When looking at the most distant galaxies visible, what is it exactly that is seen ?   When looking at a star that is 13.5 billion light years away, the star or galaxy is being viewed as it was 13.5 billion years ago. It is found that the redshift registers at 1,500,000 kms/sec,  this seems to be perfectly acceptable as the early Universe would have had to expand at several times the speed of light in order to reach its present size, if calculations are made it is found that at this rate (i.e., 5 C ) light travels  31.5 x  106 x 1.5 x 103 = 4.7 x 10 13  kms. per year.  Whereas at ordinary light speed 13.5 billion light years would mean a distance of  1.27  x 1023 kms.  at the same time  moving at 5C the Universe would have travelled   6.35 x 1023 kms in the other direction.  Does this mean that the Universe would have expanded   to a distance of   6.35 x 1023Kms  because of the difference in speed ?  Or does it mean that the Universe expanded at FTL for a fraction of that time of 13.5 billion years and then slowed down to ordinary less than light velocities ?

 Furthermore if the oldest galaxies record such high velocities of several times the speed of light due to expansion of the Universe at that time, surely newer galaxies would show a far reduced redshift because they are from a time when the inflationary stage of the Universe was presumably over and faster than light speeds are not possible.

This in a nutshell is what the residual cosmological redshift theory is all about.  Looked at from this perspective, it is as if we had been looking at the whole concept of the redshift problem from the wrong end of a telescope. If we look at the problem from the other end, Looking from the most distant galaxies towards earth and not the other way around, everything begins to come together and make sense.  Suppose taking the earlier example of a galaxy that is 13.5 billion light years distant, then obviously the light from that Galaxy would be proceeding towards earth from a time 13.5 billion years ago or just 300,000 years after the Big Bang. 

Consider the extraordinary forces at work during the inflationary stage of the Universe, the acceleration given to all matter in the Universe by that singular event must have still been making its presence known for a considerable time after the Big Bang and this is precisely what the cosmological redshift shows.  The cosmological redshift from the Galaxies furthest away from earth show that the Galaxy was moving away at several times the speed of light, let us say that that most distant Galaxy shows a redshift of 1,500,000 kms/sec or 5 times the speed of light. Returning to the vicinity of the Galaxy, we find that this light is emanating from 13.5 billion years ago and hence the acceleration imparted to the Galaxy by the inflationary episode of the Big Bang is still strong, as time passes , however, that initial acceleration begins to slow, so that after a billion years the speed of recession might reduce to 4 times the speed of light and after another billion years it might reduce to 3 times the speed of light and so on. Till at the present time the velocity of expansion might be reduced to a fraction of the speed of light. This makes perfect sense. It also corresponds very clear with what is actually observed. Thus Galaxies that are closer to earth or are younger have a much reduced velocity  than do Galaxies that are older and further away. Thus what we are seeing is residual redshift, not the redshift as it might be today.

This fact that what we see is not what we get in the present but what we would have got in the past is the key to making sense of the cosmological redshift. Taken like this the cosmological redshift becomes a clear and lucid record of events as they unfolded in the formation of the Universe, whether these insights help in forming a notion of what the future might hold is moot, what it does do is give a better understanding of the past and the present and opens up possibilities about the future.

Moreover, what this theory also makes clear, is that the present runaway inflationary theory of the Universe, where Galaxies are beginning to move away from each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light, leading to a kind of chaotic end game scenarios, are completely unfounded. Instead what does remain is a logical sequence of events.

Furthermore if the residual redshift is followed, there is no need to ***** foot around the fact that the redshift actually shows 5 times the speed of light, if the redshift actually registers those speeds why try to change it through mathematical or theoretical manipulation.  Although if general relativity applies there is nothing wrong in using it.
« Last Edit: 16/04/2016 12:03:56 by McQueen »


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: New Theory entitled residual cosmological redshift:
« Reply #1 on: 16/04/2016 12:30:46 »
When looking at the most distant galaxies visible, what is it exactly that is seen ?   When looking at a star that is 13.5 billion light years away, the star or galaxy is being viewed as it was 13.5 billion years ago. It is found that the redshift registers at 1,500,000 kms/sec,  this seems to be perfectly acceptable as the early Universe would have had to expand at several times the speed of light in order to reach its present size, if calculations are made it is found that at this rate (i.e., 5 C ) light travels  31.5 x  106 x 1.5 x 103 = 4.7 x 10 13  kms. per year.  Whereas at ordinary light speed 13.5 billion light years would mean a distance of  1.27  x 1023 kms.  at the same time  moving at 5C the Universe would have travelled   6.35 x 1023 kms in the other direction.  Does this mean that the Universe would have expanded   to a distance of   6.35 x 1023Kms  because of the difference in speed ?  Or does it mean that the Universe expanded at FTL for a fraction of that time of 13.5 billion years and then slowed down to ordinary less than light velocities ?

 Furthermore if the oldest galaxies record such high velocities of several times the speed of light due to expansion of the Universe at that time, surely newer galaxies would show a far reduced redshift because they are from a time when the inflationary stage of the Universe was presumably over and faster than light speeds are not possible.

This in a nutshell is what the residual cosmological redshift theory is all about.  Looked at from this perspective, it is as if we had been looking at the whole concept of the redshift problem from the wrong end of a telescope. If we look at the problem from the other end, Looking from the most distant galaxies towards earth and not the other way around, everything begins to come together and make sense.  Suppose taking the earlier example of a galaxy that is 13.5 billion light years distant, then obviously the light from that Galaxy would be proceeding towards earth from a time 13.5 billion years ago or just 300,000 years after the Big Bang. 

Consider the extraordinary forces at work during the inflationary stage of the Universe, the acceleration given to all matter in the Universe by that singular event must have still been making its presence known for a considerable time after the Big Bang and this is precisely what the cosmological redshift shows.  The cosmological redshift from the Galaxies furthest away from earth show that the Galaxy was moving away at several times the speed of light, let us say that that most distant Galaxy shows a redshift of 1,500,000 kms/sec or 5 times the speed of light. Returning to the vicinity of the Galaxy, we find that this light is emanating from 13.5 billion years ago and hence the acceleration imparted to the Galaxy by the inflationary episode of the Big Bang is still strong, as time passes , however, that initial acceleration begins to slow, so that after a billion years the speed of recession might reduce to 4 times the speed of light and after another billion years it might reduce to 3 times the speed of light and so on. Till at the present time the velocity of expansion might be reduced to a fraction of the speed of light. This makes perfect sense. It also corresponds very clear with what is actually observed. Thus Galaxies that are closer to earth or are younger have a much reduced velocity  than do Galaxies that are older and further away. Thus what we are seeing is residual redshift, not the redshift as it might be today.

This fact that what we see is not what we get in the present but what we would have got in the past is the key to making sense of the cosmological redshift. Taken like this the cosmological redshift becomes a clear and lucid record of events as they unfolded in the formation of the Universe, whether these insights help in forming a notion of what the future might hold is moot, what it does do is give a better understanding of the past and the present and opens up possibilities about the future.

Moreover, what this theory also makes clear, is that the present runaway inflationary theory of the Universe, where Galaxies are beginning to move away from each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light, leading to a kind of chaotic end game scenarios, are completely unfounded. Instead what does remain is a logical sequence of events.

Furthermore if the residual redshift is followed, there is no need to ***** foot around the fact that the redshift actually shows 5 times the speed of light, if the redshift actually registers those speeds why try to change it through mathematical or theoretical manipulation.  Although if general relativity applies there is nothing wrong in using it.


or its a visual perception and relatively  means nothing.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: New Theory entitled residual cosmological redshift:
« Reply #2 on: 16/04/2016 15:26:04 »
That is my point, except for actual physical observations that have been made the premises that are based upon those observations are unverifiable. But it does provide the possibility for tracing the origins of the Universe to the Big Bang.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: New Theory entitled residual cosmological redshift:
« Reply #2 on: 16/04/2016 15:26:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums