When I read what modern astrophysicists say to each other I ask myself: Who are these people? They sound like theologians.

Don't get me wrong, I find what they say very interesting.

That doesn't mean there's no Dark Matter in the cosmic cavities that you mention. I imagine there is. But the view at the moment is that most of it's in the same regions as most of the ordinary matter.

When I first became interested in relativity it was scientifically accepted that the mass of distant galaxies was insufficient to cause the amount of redshift observed.

Part of my initial submission to academia suggested that we may be underestimating the mass of those galaxies.

My submission was ignored however seven years later I was delighted to read an article in New Scientist to the effect that astrophysicists had determined that the galaxies were 500 to a thousand times more massive than had previously been estimated.

Perhaps even that prediction may need to be revised.

That's interesting, Bill. How is the mass of a galaxy related to it's redshift?

I haven't seen anything about that discussion, but an extremely massive galaxy would show a gravitational red shift. Actually any size galaxy would have one, but normally it would be so small it would be indetectible.

Bill Gill

I shall assume that you are happy with the answer provided.

So you may have the satisfaction of saying see my analysis was right if thats the case.

The problem really became there are many galaxies which should be flying apart.

The redshift they can live with as a one day we will get around to working it out when there galaxies should be flying apart they have to act.

Bit like a small oil leak in your car versus the engine blowing up both are signs of a problem one is much more compelling to act :-)

Orac,

Other than the fact that my posting related to gravitational lensing, not the structural nature of galaxies, your message left me baffled.

Yes, I can see that. It's very surprising to me that such small gravitational redshifts can be confidently differentiated from redshift due to recessional velocity.

I should think it involves redshift measurement of Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae, but there's still the problem of differentiating the causes of the shift.

If anyone knows of a source of further relevant info, I'd be glad of it.

Sorry Bill.S that english thing again was making an analagy to a car and why they ignored your theory back then. Ignore it wasn't important.

Lookie there, over 200,000 views on this most glorious of threads.

I'm thinking some sort of prize is in order.

I'll wait...

I suppose you realize, Marchi, that more could be worse rather than better. After all, 200,000 views yet so few participants might mean that the vast majority find it not even worthy of comment. Nevermind, they probably love you anyway

Hi
I think a lot of scifi films and TV programmes have infused the idea of space travel in that science fiction has become science fact. Shows such as Star Trek, Space 1999 and Unicorn Four have explained ideas regarding space travel in both the imaginary plane and the theoretical plane. If you take the TV series Unicorn Four for example there were some far out ideas there and a lot of which could be possible as soon as energy sources have been created and stabilised so that they can be used for their intergalactical functions. One example is here at the start of the first episode of Unicorn Four.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpqahotyI0M

So...no prize?

Fine.

Then.

I'll go pout somewhere, nah, you know what always makes me feel more betterer?

Abusing liberals.

Nowz when youse guys seriously consider a prize.

Marchi, I think you do deserve a prize.

You don't pretend to be a scientist, you just offer some ideas in a good-natured way, and you don't object to being told when you're wrong.

Just spent lots of time looking back through the thread to see why you were apologising to me; then I realised you were offering your regrets to Bill 6!

Here’s a point disinterred from page one.





Is the relative recession rate of all receding objects the same? E.g. Given that the distance between any two objects is the same; would they recede from each other at the same speed?

I guess your talking about the big bang.

as in any explosion there would be differences in the magnatude of the force that caused all the stuff to move outward , so no everything would not move at the same speed.'

I would think that the first stuff moved slower because there was more for the explosion to push.

the middle would have moved faster.

the last stuff would move even faster.

sort of an inverted ball.

Could you not also argue that stuff would be moving faster at the beginning because the force driving it would more concentrated. The trouble is, this begins to sound like an explosion in space, which we are assured the BB was not.

Then again, if your reasoning is right, perhaps you have found an explanation for accelerating expansion.

Perhaps you and Finiter are both heading for Nobel Prizes.

I was just thinking about the cause of the big bang a few years back and my conclusion was that as everything came together the pressures caused the energy of matter to escape
this way atoms could get closer and closer to each other as they are compacted in towards the center.

then at some point there is an explosion as the energy returns.

perhaps all the energy of all the atoms is striped away through the compression and once the energy is gone then
the compression itself through the heat causes the explosion.

and the explosion would occur at the center where compression and heat is greatest.

this would mean that there would need to be a tremendous explosion to push all the matter away because energy really doesnt weigh anything.


anyway its a thought I had.
Im sure somebody needs to trim it up and change a few things.