0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
At the first moment after the emission, Light B has a redshift value of zero.
None of the above makes any sense since it uses inertial terms without frame references.
The light we're seeing now passed B at the time of B's light being emitted, about 6.7 BL ago, not now.
Light from B was emitted and moving at proper speed c in the direction of the milky way (galaxy A). Let's call it light B. Note that this doesn't mean the distance between A and light B was decreasing at the rate of c.At the first moment after the emission, Light B had a proper redshift value of zero, meaning it appears unshifted to a local observer who also has no proper velicity.However, after crossing the distance between B to A at the speed of light, we presently see a proper redshift z(ab)=1. The word 'presently' is important. It's what we see now.
I do not know the actual redshift that B will observe back at that past event. It probably isn't 0.5
QuoteQuoteSo why the redshift of light B had increased by 1 (from Zero to 1) while the redshift of light C had increased by 1.5 (from 0.5 to 2)?Again, you're trying to use addition to redshift values where straight addition is meaningless. We're not counting apples.
QuoteSo why the redshift of light B had increased by 1 (from Zero to 1) while the redshift of light C had increased by 1.5 (from 0.5 to 2)?
QuoteQuoteLight B and light C cross exactly the same distance between B to A and exactly at the same speed of light.Yes, they do.
QuoteLight B and light C cross exactly the same distance between B to A and exactly at the same speed of light.
QuoteWith regards to galaxy CThe light from C also emitted at redshift zero. Let's call it light C.It gets to B at a redshift of z(bc) = 0.5.It gets to B presently at reshift 0.5.
With regards to galaxy C
Why is it?.Our scientists claim that high redshift can give us an indication for time, distance and velocity
Therefore, it is all about the status of the galaxy at the moment that light had been emitted.
Light B with redshift 1 tells us that this light had been emitted 6.7 BLY
So as light C has redshift value of 2, why can't we estimate when it was emitted and at what distance from our current location?
Let's set a direct line from the Milky way (galaxy A) all the way to galaxy C. (Line - AC)This line also cross galaxy B. (Line AB)Therefore, we can also call it Line ABCLet's also assume that from the moment of their creation (about 13.5 BY Ago) Galaxy B and galax C stay always in that line from galaxy A. So, at any point of time in the past, line ABC always cross galaxy B, while the distances between the three galaxies are increasing due to the expansion process.Let's also assume that the size of each galaxy is 50,000 LYSo, let's assume that 6.7B[Y] ago we could position our self in the line AB at a distance of about 100,000LY from galaxy B. Let's call it observation point -P1.So, line A,P1,B,C is a direct line.From P1 we can see the nearby galaxy B and also the further away galaxy C.Let's assume that the relative velocity between galaxy B to P1 is almost zero.What would be the redshift of light B and light C that we could see from P1, 6.7BL ago?
Light B:Quote from: Halc on 12/06/2020 14:12:59At the first moment after the emission, Light B had a proper redshift value of zero, meaning it appears unshifted to a local observer who also has no peculiar velocity.So, light B redshift was zero, while 6.7 BY latter it will get to galaxy A with redshift of z=1.
At the first moment after the emission, Light B had a proper redshift value of zero, meaning it appears unshifted to a local observer who also has no peculiar velocity.
We clearly see that the redshift of light C is higher than redshift of light B so it had been emitted long before light B. Hence, it is an excellent indication for past.
So, as light B had red shifted by z=1 during that time 6.7 BY
Why can't we just assume that from P1 light C must get extra red shifted as light B (z=1) as they both cross the same distance at the same speed (from P1)?
How can you claim that it gets to B PRESENTLY at reshift 0.5
while we know for sure that the light B had to cross the space between A to B for 6.7 BY before we could see it?
As Light C is redshifted by z=2 than it is clear that it is located further away from B
Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B
How this information in redshift of light C can tell any valid data about the present time between B to C?
QuoteQuoteTherefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy BAbout 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago).
QuoteTherefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B
Wrong. A space ship departing Earth at 0.5c would have no redshift according to that formula since d is nearly zero. Also, for a distant galaxy, d is not directly measurable. All we measure is redshift, so v=Hd doesn't work since it's not a function of z. It is in fact how we determine present d for an object with negligible peculiar velocity once we already know present v.
QuoteQuoteSo, please show the correct Hubble formula that converts rerdshift to time and distance for any z which is higher than 0.1.There isn't a neat formula with a couple terms in it. I'm using a model that's 12 years old. It has been tweaked since then, which makes for a somewhat altered curve for z to v. Use the graph in post 419. That's the only 'formula' I have, even if it's a decade out of date. v=zc is on that chart and is from Newtonian mechanics, falsified 150 years ago. Special relativity is plotted as well z = √((1+v)/(1-v)), which was always only a local model, so it works for our departing rocket at any redshift, but doesn't work for other galaxies. None of those curves match non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity, which fall into that grey region.
QuoteSo, please show the correct Hubble formula that converts rerdshift to time and distance for any z which is higher than 0.1.
It is in fact how we determine present d for an object with negligible peculiar velocity once we already know present v. That doesn't work to compute the v of the rocket since the rocket doesn't have negligible peculiar velocity.
QuoteQuoteYou have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.BC is the one that keep saying that, quoting SR, a local theory. So nothing local can move faster than light. These galaxies are not actually moving fast at all, having a 'negligible peculiar velocity'. Peculiar velocity is what cannot exceed c in GR.
QuoteYou have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 15/06/2020 15:32:26You confirm that we are not using the Doppler Effect formula (v=zc) or any proved formula for redshift, so how do we know that this region is correct?Best current fit to data
Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/06/2020 15:32:26You confirm that we are not using the Doppler Effect formula (v=zc) or any proved formula for redshift, so how do we know that this region is correct?
The model has been adjusted over the last several years, so that graph gets tweaked.
I think the new curve is based on ΩM and ΩΛ of closer to 0.2, 0.8 and not 0.3, 0.7 as plotted in that picture. So there is no claim that it is 'correct'. Just as correct as they can make it until new data yields better details.
QuoteHowever, based on this gray region we get the following:1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.About z=1.6, but yes.
I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
(And a lack of clarity about proper velocity).
QuoteQuoteHowever, based on this gray region we get the following:1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.About z=1.6, but yes.
QuoteHowever, based on this gray region we get the following:1. When the redshift is higher than z=1.3 the galaxy velocity already cross the speed of light.
QuoteQuoteYou have told me again and again that galaxies couldn't move faster than the speed of light due to relativity, and now we have a conformation for that activity as I was expecting.So nothing local can move faster than light. These galaxies are not actually moving fast at all, having a 'negligible peculiar velocity'. Peculiar velocity is what cannot exceed c in GR.
Do you agree by now that far away galaxies/objects with redshift higher than 1.6 are moving away faster than the speed of light without violating the special relativity?
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?
The recession velocity is what is faster than light, not the peculiar velocity. They aren't moving through space itself faster than light. That's the difference.
QuoteQuoteWhat is peculiar velocity?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocityGalaxies are not distributed evenly throughout observable space, but are typically found in groups or clusters, where they have a significant gravitational effect on each other.Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from this gravitational attraction are usually in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."Which is well below 0.01c, which is negligible in terms of the magnitudes of redshift being discussed.
QuoteWhat is peculiar velocity?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocityGalaxies are not distributed evenly throughout observable space, but are typically found in groups or clusters, where they have a significant gravitational effect on each other.Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from this gravitational attraction are usually in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."
The Triangulum Galaxy is located near the massive super galaxy that is called Andromeda.Therefore, if the assumption about the "Peculiar velocity" was correct, than this galaxy had to move inwards in the direction of Andromeda.Surprisingly, it is not. It is actually moving away from Andromeda, while we know for sure that in the past it was closer.In the same token, none of the dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way is moving in.So, what kind of other information do you need to understand that the Peculiar velocity idea might be incorrect?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 19/06/2020 14:14:48However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?I spent lots of my career as a chemist measuring amounts of stuff.The obvious way to measure stuff is to weigh it.That's not always practical.For example, I might have wanted to measure chlorine in air.It's utterly impractical to actually weigh it.But I can take a sample of air and bubble through a solution of potassium iodide in water.And the chlorine reacts with it and produces iodine. And I can then add a solution of starch- which forms a deep blue/black coloured complex with the iodine.And then I can shine a light beam through that solutionAnd I can measure the intensity of the light that gets through.Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.And then, with that graph, I can convert a light intensity to a mass of chlorine.Do you understand that sort of thing?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/06/2020 05:06:18I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.Nice try.What I said was that they can't have a proper velocity > CI did explain that; perhaps you didn't understand it.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/06/2020 05:06:18I'm quite sure that BC (with all of his wide knowledge in science) had no idea that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light.
Well, light intensity certainly isn't mass of chlorine. Different ideas, different units and so on.But I can calibrate it with known masses of chlorine and set up a graph of mass of chlorine vs light intensity.
You forgot to answer this
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.
I have no intention to read your messages while your main task is to prove that whatever I say is incorrect, even if you know that my claim is fully correct.
to prove that whatever I say is incorrect,
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:15I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.No, I have not.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:15I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.
Anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a blog site, you signed up to rules that require you to address reasonable questions.
Do you understand that you can measure something by measuring a related parameter?
The redshift is all about velocity.Hubble had found galaxies with high redshift value. He had assumed that this higher value of redshift indicates on a further away galaxy.His formula is based on this understanding.However, even at this moment, with all the advanced technology and knowledge our scientists have no real technology to measure the correct distance to far away galaxy. Therefore, they have no real reference to convert redshift to distance, Time Or velocity (for high redshift value). Hence, we can't know if Hubble law for z=10 (as an example) is correct by 100%, 50% or less than 0.00..1%.We can't even know for sure that a galaxy with a redshift of z=10 is located further away from other galaxy with redshift z=9.9.However, we know by 100% that a galaxy with z=10 must move away at higher velocity with regards to galaxy with a redshift of z=9.9.Therefore, redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity.
Yes, you did.However, I do not wish to remember it anymore.
I have no obligation to anyone that had insulted me.
1. Did you know that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?Please - Yes or no?
2. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?Please - Yes or no?
3. If so, do you agree that our real universe could be much bigger than the very compact size of the observable universe which is ONLY 92BLY? So theoretically it could be infinite?
4. How can you fit that ultra big real universe in only 13.8BY?
I have already given you the answer for that:
I have no intention to read your messages
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:24:072. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?Please - Yes or no?Nobody knows, so again, it's not a yes/no question.And, again, the fact that you think it is shows that you don't understand the issues.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:24:072. Do you understand that the universe has no maximal size?Please - Yes or no?
Sorry you/our scientists can't just hold the stick in both sides.You must take a decision: what is the real size of the UNIVERSE???Is it 13BLY, 92BLY, 500BLY, 10^10BLY or just infinite???If you can't tell the size of the universe, than how can you expect us to believe your story?How can you believe in your own theory?Before starting any sort of theory - it is our obligation to set the size of the Universe!!!I'm ready to accept any size, however once you set a size and surprisingly -your theory contradicts this size, than you should set this theory in the garbage.Any theory should give a clear explanation for the whole real universe.If our real universe is bigger than the observable Universe, while the BBT can only cover the observable universe, than this theory is none relevant.We all know that Freidmann formulas are vital for the expansion and for the BBT.However, those formulas are based on homogenous and isotropic universe.Therefore, it is stated:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Dltt_is_Dumb.html"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."What is the meaning of: "it has no edge"?What is the meaning of "there cannot be a maximum distance"?If you like it or not, a Universe without "maximum distance" means - infinite Universe.Therefore, the ONLY meaning is that the universe MUST be INFINITE. (Almost infinite is actually infinite).If you think that this is incorrect, than please explain how a finite Universe that clearly contradicts the meaning of – " so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance", could still be considered as homogeneous and isotropic universe while its size is increasing during the last 13.8 BY from almost zero to 92BLY, and as we know that our real universe is much bigger than this 92BLY that we call observable Universe.Do you agree that if the Universe isn't homogeneous and isotropic, than friedmann equation are none relevant and therefore the BBT is none relevant?
Theory D1. IntroductionThe Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
if you "run the film backwards" so to speak, you can find a point where all the universe was in the same place- a big bang.
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.
Are you still sure that you can run the BBT film backwards for that minimal size of 200BLY "Our single Universe" in only 13.8BY?
4. However, they clearly know that the real Universe doesn't stop at that range. There must be more matter outside. So they claim for Multiverse. or actually "infinite number of multiverses".
"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."
Why should we accept their word for the size of the Universe then?
Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?