[Bored chemist]

At the first moment after the emission, Light B has a redshift value of zero.

From what  point of view?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

None of the above makes any sense since it uses inertial terms without frame references.

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 ABC
Let'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 LY

The light we're seeing now passed B at the time of B's light being emitted, about 6.7 BL ago, not now.

So, let's assume that 6.7BL 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:

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.

So, light B redshift was zero, while 6.7 BY latter it will get to galaxy A with redshift of z=1.

However what about light C?
What should be its redshift 6.7 BY ago while we stay at P1?

I do not know the actual redshift that B will observe back at that past event.  It probably isn't 0.5

Why? 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.

Quote
So 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.

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?

Quote
Light B and light C cross exactly the same distance between B to A and exactly at the same speed of light.

Yes, they do.

You confirm that both light B and Light C cross exactly the same distance and exactly at the same velocity from Point P1 (or almost)

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)?

With regards to galaxy C

The 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.

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
Let's assume that it took it X BY, than we can claim that:
(X + 6.7) BY ago Light from galaxy C had been emitted at redshift Zero.
It took it X BLY to get to galaxy B and than 6.7 Bly to get to galaxy A.
So, we see today (PRESENTLY) Light C (with redshift z=2) that had been emitted X+6.7 BY ago.
Therefore, how this information in redshift of light C can tell any valid data about the present time between B to C?

[Halc]

Why is it?.
Our scientists claim that high redshift can give us an indication for time, distance and velocity

The graph is valid for objects with negligible peculiar velocity (velocity relative to the mean of the stuff all around it, which I've called 'proper speed' above, but peculiar velocity is the more correct term). It doesn't work for just any moving object as your statement implies.

Therefore, it is all about the status of the galaxy at the moment that light had been emitted.

I clearly said that it maps redshift to present recession speed, not any state at emission time. You continue to ignore what you're actually told, preferring instead to just make up your own interpretation of somebody else's date.

Light B with redshift 1 tells us that this light had been emitted 6.7 BLY

I'm going to correct this figure to 7.6 BY ago.  Not sure how it got to be 6.7 (dislexia?), but 7.6 seems the more correct figure. That's 7.6 billion years ago (a time), not 7.6 BLY (an unqualified distance), at a proper distance of about 5.4 BLY at the time.
To get these numbers, go to the picture in post 396 and find the redshift 1 mark on the red line.  The age of that event is marked on the vertical axis, and the proper distance to that event is marked on the horizontal axis.

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?

We can.
Light from an object with a redshift of 2 was emitted about 10.1 BY ago at a proper distance of about 5.7 BLY from here at the time.

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 ABC
Let'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 LY

So, 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?

I don't know.  I don't have an equivalent set of data for that period of time.  B will be negligibly redshifted because you said P1 is essentially comoving with B.  I do know that C would have been moving away from B at a higher rate back then than it is now.  Expansion had been decelerating around that time, whereas it is currently accelerating.

Light B:

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.

So, light B redshift was zero, while 6.7 BY latter it will get to galaxy A with redshift of z=1.

You change the meaning by wording it that way, so no, your statement is ambiguously worded, thus meaningless.

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.

Yes, Light we see now from C was emitted further back in time than the light we see now from B.

So, as light B had red shifted by z=1 during that time 6.7 BY

Another meaningless statement.  Redshift of light is something observed, not a property of light. It is dependent on the motion of the observer, not on anything that happens to the light over time.
If you're talking about proper redshift, then use that term. That value has nothing to do with observation.

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)?

One does not assume such things, which would be just making up numbers like you do. One computes the redshift predicted by the model being used.

How can you claim that it gets to B PRESENTLY at reshift 0.5

We decided in that example that B and C had a present recession speed of 0.45c (1.25c - 0.8c), and the model maps z=0.5 to that present recession speed.

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?

The model says it took 7.6 BY between those two events, yes. Yes, 6.7 was posted earlier, but 7.6 is more accurate.

As Light C is redshifted by z=2 than it is clear that it is located further away from B

Further than what?  Yes, C is further from A than B is, but C is closer to B than than is A.  B presently sees a redshift of 0.8 looking at A, but sees 0.5 looking at B in the other direction.  Lower redshift means it is closer.

Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B

About 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago).

How this information in redshift of light C can tell any valid data about the present time between B to C?

Pretty useless.  I just subtracted the two emission times and didn't work in redshift at all.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc

Quote
Therefore, we need to understand how long it took light C to get to galaxy B

About 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago).

Our scientists claim that:
z=1 means a light that was emitted 7.6 BY ago (galaxy B)
z=2 means a light that was emitted 10.1 BY ago (Galaxy C)
z=5.7 means a light that was emitted 12.8 BY ago (Galaxy D)
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-giant-protocluster-galaxies-high-redshift.html
z=11 means a light that was emitted 13.3 BY ago (Galaxy F)
So,
From A to B it is About 7.6 BY , while we see redshift of z=1
From B to C it is "About 2.5 BY (From 10.1 BY ago to 7.6 BY ago)", while we see a difference in redshift of z=2-1=1
From C to D it is About 2.7 BY (From 12.8 BY ago to 10.1 BY ago), while we see a difference in redshift of z=5.7-2=3.7
From D to E it is About 0.5 BY (From 13.3 BY ago to 12.8 BY ago), while we see a difference in redshift of z=11-5.7=5.5

I really can't understand the mathematics for that.
Which kind of formula our scientists are using to set the connection between redshift to distance or time?

We all know that Redshift is all about velocity based on Doppler Effect.
v = z*c
However, our scientists claim that this formula is valid till z=0.1
If it is higher, than we shouldn't use this formula any more.
At that point we need to use Hubble law which is:
v = H x d
d = distance, H=Hubble constant, v= velocity
So we can claim for
d= v /H
And than claim
d = z*c/H
However, as our scientists claim that the formula of v=z*c is not applicable for z higher than 0.1, than we shouldn't use this Hubble law formula for any z which is higher than this value.

As can't extract the velocity of a far away galaxy by its redshift Doppler formula (v=z*c), than how can we still use Hubble law which is based on velocity?

So, please show the correct Hubble formula that converts rerdshift to time and distance for any z which is higher than 0.1.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Halc

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.

As redshift has no impact on v=Hd than how do we know for sure what is the distance, time and velocity while we only have redshift?

Quote
So, 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.

Let's look again at graph in post 419:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/2lnBV.jpg[/img
You advice to focus on the gray area as "None of those curves match non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity, which fall into that grey region."
So, the grey region is based on "non-local empirical observations of objects with negligible peculiar velocity"
What does it mean: "empirical observations of objects"
How do we know that the ratio between redshift to velocity for this gray region is correct while it is based on empirical observation?
You 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?
However, 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.
2. At redshift 6 the velocity is 2c
3. At redshift 10 the velocity is about 2.5c
4. At the maximal redshift of 1000 the velocity is 3.5c

Therefore:
Do you agree that this gray region confirms that galaxies with redshift of higher than 1.3 are already moving faster than the speed of light?
You 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, why did you reject this understanding? How sudenly galaxies can move faster than the speed of light, overcome the relativity law and we even can still see them?
Please be aware that the galaxy with redshift 11 is moving away at almost 2.5 the speed of light.
So, how can we still see it?

In any case, this graph only shows the relationship between redshift and velocity.
What about Redshift to distance or redshift to time?

Based on the BBT and the CMB our scientists assume that the maximal age of the universe is 13.8 BY.
Therefore, we have set the maximal time of the whole observable universe to 13.8 BY while the maximal distance had been set to 13.8 BLY.
Why are we so sure that there must be a correlation between time maximal time (13.8 BY) to maximal distance (13.8BLY). Why can't we assume that the maximal distance of the observable universe could be more/less than this 13.8BLY?

However, that time/distance is only applicable to observable Universe. What about the real Universe?
Actually, in one of the articale that I have offered it was stated that "There is no maximal distance to the Universe"
So, do you agree that the real universe could even be INFINITE?
Therefore, could it be that this gray region in the graph is only a theory for the Observable Universe or the horizon of our Universe?
If so, how can we set any real theory while we have no clow about the real Universe?
As an example:
While we stay on earth, we can't see its full size. We only see up to its Horizon. Let's call it the observable Earth.
So, can we offer any real theory that is only based on the observable earth?

Don't you agree that before we can offer any theory or empirical graph it is our obligation to set the full size of our total real Universe. Therefore, as our universe has no maximal size than the maximal size of the Universe should be much bigger than this empirical observation of only 13.8 BLY?
How can you claim for a compact Universe (13BY ago) while it clearly has no maximal size?
If the real universe is infinite, don't you agree that galaxies were always far away from each other?
So, don't you see the fatal error/contradiction in the BBT that aim only for the observable Universe while our real universe has no maximal size?

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.

So, could it be that you our scientists don't understand how galaxies really works?
In theory D I have proved that galaxies work as a rocket over rocket.
Therefore, which kind of formula is applicable for this case?

Peculiar velocity
What is peculiar velocity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity
In physical cosmology, peculiar velocity refers to the components of a galaxy's velocity that deviate from the Hubble flow. According to Hubble's Law, galaxies recede from us at speeds proportional to their distance from us.

Galaxies 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."

So, it is the impact due to gravitational attraction/effects of other nearby galaxies.
However, we clearly see that this is a fatal assumption
For example:
The Triangulum Galaxy is located near the massive super galaxy that is called Andromeda.
Therefore, if your assumption about the "Peculiar velocity" was correct, than this galaxy had to move 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?

What kind of data is need in order to understand that
Velocity dispersions of galaxies arising from the Rocket over rocket activities of the galaxies in the hundreds of kilometers per second, but they can rise to over 1000 km/s in rich clusters."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
You 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.

Thanks Halc
I do appreciate your honest answer.
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. Therefore, I do not blame him for wasting our time.
However, it would be quite frustrating to know that you or Kryptid Knew about it but unfortunately you didn't backup my understanding.
I do expect you to support any statement that meets the real science even if it contradicts the BBT or supports my theory which you don't like so much.
I would prefer to think that you both also didn't know that galaxies could move faster than the speed of light, therefore, you couldn't support my explanation.
In any case, I hope that by know you have some appreciation for my deep understanding in science without a formal knowledge in the BBT.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/06/2020 15:32:26
You 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

Which data?
How can you get a valid estimation for velocity, distance and time while you claim that the Doppler formula v=zc isn't valid?

The model has been adjusted over the last several years, so that graph gets tweaked.

So, is it data or model?
Please show me the formula for that data/model?
 

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.

You do understand that by changing the  ΩM and ΩΛ you actually change the curve.
However, as you clearly claim that "So there is no claim that it is 'correct'.", why are you so sure that the linear Doppler formula is incorrect?

Quote
However, 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.

How do you know for sure that galaxies cross the speed of light at redshift z=1.6 instead of  z=1 (based on doppler formula)?
Which kind of advanced technology you are using to get that kind of confidence in the Velocity, distance, & time, while you totally reject the real meaning of redshift as we have in the Doppler formula?

[Bored chemist]

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.

Nice try.
What I said was that they can't have a proper velocity > C

I did explain that; perhaps you didn't understand it.

(And a lack of clarity about proper velocity).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote
However, 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.

With regards to quasar QSO 2237+0305
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
It's Redshift is 1.695
So, it is clear that this quasar is moving away faster than the speed of light.
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?
"The quasar's redshift indicates that it is located about 8 billion light years from Earth"

Quote
You 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.

Yes, I fully agree that "nothing local can move faster than light" due to relativity.
Therefore, Local velocities (you may call it "Peculiar velocities") are what cannot exceed c in GR.

A question to Kryptid
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?

[Kryptid]

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?

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.

[Bored chemist]

However, 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 solution
And 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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Well, you can call it recession velocity.
However, as long as we agree that we clearly see galaxies that are moving away faster than the speed of light, while we can't see any Universe frame or any sort of expansion in space - than this is perfectly Ok for me.
 

Quote
However, 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.

With regards to quasar QSO 2237+0305
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
It's Redshift is 1.695
So, it is clear that this quasar is moving away faster than the speed of light.
However, I still don't understand how our scientists could convert that redshift into distance?
"The quasar's redshift indicates that it is located about 8 billion light years from Earth"
How do they know that a redshift of z=1.695 means d= 8BLY while there is no real reference of point/distance for that redshift?

Quote
What is peculiar velocity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity
Galaxies 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.

You have missed the key point.
Galaxies are not effected by "significant gravitational effect" of nearby galaxies.
As I have already proved with regards to Andromeda / Triangulum galaxies: A quite compact spiral galaxy (Triangulum) is moving directly away from a super massive galaxy as andromeda and aginest the gravitational effect.

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?

Therefore, the assumption the "Peculiar velocity" is due to gravity effect of nearby galaxies might be none realistic.
This is a key observation that galaxies are moving in space as rockets over rockets.
Triangulum is moving in a direct line from Andromeda while there is a hydrogen bridge between the two. Therefore, this baby spiral galaxy should be considered as the child of Andromeda or as a galaxy that had been ejected from Andromeda at a specific velocity.
It is quite clear that this galaxy was quite smaller in the past (or at the time that it had been ejected from its mother galaxy as a BH). That BH could generate new matter that was needed to form all the new stars around it. However, some of the new created Hydrogen had been ejected from the galaxy and set this Hydrogen Bridge while it is moving away from its mother galaxy.
That hydrogen bridge proves that sometime in the past, Triangulum galaxy was very close to Andromeda.
So, why our scientists totally ignore that simple understanding while they hold the none realistic idea of that "Peculiar velocity"?.

[Bored chemist]

You forgot to answer this

However, 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 solution
And 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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/06/2020 05:06:18
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.

Nice try.
What I said was that they can't have a proper velocity > C
I did explain that; perhaps you didn't understand it.

So, you knew that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
The explanation for that is totally none relevant especially as we can't see the Universe frame or the expansion in the space itself as we have no real reference point in the space that indicates the velocity/time/distance with regards to redshift (for redshift higher than 1).
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.

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.

As we can't estimate the size of tomato only by its color, we also can't extract the distance or time by redshift.
Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity.
Therefore, any graph that aims to convert the redshift to distance or time is based on a fatal error.

You forgot to answer this

I didn't forget it.
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.
Therefore, 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.
Shame on you!

[Bored chemist]

I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.

No, I have not.
Don't lie.

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.

I don't "know" that your claim is correct. I strongly suspect that it is not, and I have evidence for that, in the form of other people's assertions that you are wrong and, you may recall, the fact that your claim starts with a non sequitur.


Do you know that science consist of trying to do this?

to prove that whatever I say is incorrect,

So, what you are complaining about is that someone on a science web site is doing science.
Shame on you.


Anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a blog  site, you signed up to rules that require you to address reasonable questions.
So, here it is again:

However, 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 solution
And 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?

Do you understand that you can measure something by measuring a related parameter?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:15
I also can't forget that you have insulted me several times while you knew that my message is 100% correct.

No, I have not.

Yes, you did.
However, I do not wish to remember it anymore.

Anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a blog  site, you signed up to rules that require you to address reasonable questions.

I have no obligation to anyone that had insulted me.
Not in this forum and not in the whole universe!

Never the less;
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?
5.

Do you understand that you can measure something by measuring a related parameter?

I have already given you the answer for that:

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.

However, if you assume that a redshift of a far away galaxy could be considered as a related parameter to distance & time (age) than please prove it?

[Bored chemist]

Yes, you did.
However, I do not wish to remember it anymore.

That's a pathetic lie.
I'd expect better from a five-year-old.

I have no obligation to anyone that had insulted me.

There's no evidence that I insulted you.

1. Did you know that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
Please - Yes or no?

It's not a "yes or no" question, because it depends on whether you are talking about proper velocity.

The fact that you think it is  a binary outcome  shows where the fault is in your understanding.

2. 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.

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?

The use of the word "so" there suggests that one implies the other.
That's simply not true.
So, once again you make it clear that you don't understand stuff; in this case, logic (or language).

4. How can you fit that ultra big real universe in only 13.8BY?

Who said you needed to?

I have already given you the answer for that:

No, you have not, you made a childish comment

I have no intention to read your messages

Why do you behave like this?
Are you trolling?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:24:07
2. 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.

Yes, Our scientists clearly know that the real universe should be much bigger than that compact size of the observable Universe.
They clearly claim that the Universe has no edge and no maximal size:
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."

I have already introduced this valid data:

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?

I have found one more article about the size of the real Universe:
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/astronomy/the-universe/
"The universe could potentially be infinite and have no boundary or it could end shortly after this observable region. Some physicists have estimated the size of the universe to be somewhere in the range of 200–250 billion light years. But we simply don’t know. Other scientists suggest that our universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses."

So, let's set the data:
1. The observable Universe size is - 92BLY
2. Our scientists do Understand that our Universe MUST be much bigger than this compact size as it has no edge and no maximal size.
3. So, they offer that the Minimal size of our Universe is in the range of 200BLY - 250BLY. Let's call it: Our single Universe".
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".
5. Sorry, there is no "infinite number of multiverses". Our real Universe is one INFINITE universe as I was expecting by Theory D.
My first message was:

Theory D
1. Introduction
The 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.

6. You have stated:

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.

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? How can you run it for the real infinite Universe/Multiverse?

[Bored chemist]

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

You did, indeed, start with that non sequitur. I pointed out that it makes no sense. You would get something that looks like the CMBR if we were in a closed cold box which isn't infinite).
That, in itself, is pretty much grounds to ignore your ideas.

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?

Yes.
As long as you take account of inflation.

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".

So, the scientists, on whom you are depending,when you quote them like this

"The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so it has no edge. Thus there cannot be a maximum distance."

get it wrong.

OK, that's fine.
Why should we accept their word for the size of the Universe then?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

Do you reject the idea that the universe has no edge and no maximal distance?
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."

If so, do you agree that the universe can't be "homogeneous and isotropic"?
In this case, do you agree that Friedman formulas are totally none relevant?
So, how can we support the BBT without Friedman formulas?

Based on your understanding, what is the size of the real & entire Universe?

[Kryptid]

Are you sure that we should reject our scientists word for the size of the Universe?

You reject a lot of what scientists say, so why would you care?