Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Mike: "Yet another question for Astronomers to prove or disprove?"

It's disproven already. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has been observed to be isotropic. The irregularities of red/blue shift are accounted for by motion due to gravity that counters, adds to or subtracts from the rate of mutual recession.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Hi Redewenur,
Forgive me but I was'nt refering to the Cosmic Microwave Background, but to the Universes Constant Expansion.
I didnt explain myself very well when I said the Red Shifts won't change, but there might be 'fingers of protruding matter', or even depressions.....we just could'nt prove their existence,
since we assume that equal Red shifts of equal brightness means equal distances from us. which is further strengthened by the assumption that Dark Matter, thats causing our expansion is in (constant?} production, everywhere?
However put another way.....similar Galaxy distances don't always produce similar Red Shifts.
'Tired' light that is coming out from an 'above average' higher gravitational Galaxy than normal, or light that has travelled further than we suspect due to its gravitational bending on its way to us, are just two cases in point. Or even light that has travelled thru a dusty environment.

The fact is there is no guarantee that similar Red Shifts of similar brightness, are all equidistant Galaxies.
Without a distance guarantee, there is no speed guarantee, making for further complications.

Or to put it yet another way....it could mean that there is no proof that Dark Matter is produced uniformly throughout our 'spherical' Universe.
Therefore since true 'far galaxy' distances cannot be proven, then the known universe cannot be proven to be a true spherical shape.
Which , as I stated previously, is what I believe.

Its an interesting discussion, but I dont believe either of us will come to any conclusion, due to the unproven variables concerned.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/15/8/016





.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Mike: "my personal opinion is that our Universe may not be expanding consistantly in every direction"

Me: "The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has been observed to be isotropic"

Mike: "Forgive me but I was'nt refering to the Cosmic Microwave Background, but to the Universes Constant Expansion."

- CMBR isotropy implies that space is expanding at the same rate everywhere. If it were not, one would expect to find a related anistropy, but such differences in temperature have proven non-existant. The rate of expansion has been shown to be uniform in space, and accelerating in time.

Mike: "which is further strengthened by the assumption that Dark Matter, thats causing our expansion is in (constant?} production, everywhere?"

- I think you mean Dark Energy. If so, can you point me to some info regarding its constant production, as this is news to me.

Mike: "'Tired' light that is coming out from an 'above average' higher gravitational Galaxy than normal..."

- Modern day tired light proponents not only fail to take account of all the evidence, but also apply faulty reasoning. Here's one example:

"Regardless of your beliefs as to how the Universe started, one piece of experimental observation has to be explained - that is, in redshift, the photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival at the Earth, than when they set off from the distant galaxy. This means that photons of light have less energy on arrival than when they set off.
Where did this energy go?"

- which fails to note that since the energy is stretched in space, it is also stretched in time, i.e., it takes a little longer for the same amount of energy to arrive. No energy if lost.

The tired light theory is defunct,

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm (Note, also, the reasoning associated with CMB)
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=444

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Mike: "my personal opinion is that our Universe may not be expanding consistantly in every direction"

Me: "The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has been observed to be isotropic"

Mike: "Forgive me but I was'nt refering to the Cosmic Microwave Background, but to the Universes Constant Expansion."

.....................>


Mike: "'Tired' light that is coming out from an 'above average' higher gravitational Galaxy than normal..."

redewenur
- Modern day tired light proponents not only fail to take account of all the evidence, but also apply faulty reasoning. Here's one example:

"Regardless of your beliefs as to how the Universe started, one piece of experimental observation has to be explained - that is, in redshift, the photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival at the Earth, than when they set off from the distant galaxy. This means that photons of light have less energy on arrival than when they set off.
Where did this energy go?"

- which fails to note that since the energy is stretched in space, it is also stretched in time, i.e., it takes a little longer for the same amount of energy to arrive. No energy if lost.

The tired light theory is defunct,

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm (Note, also, the reasoning associated with CMB)
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=444


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Many, many, thanks for the above 'tired light' URL's, Redenur.

I will keep them and study them with great interest.
For they do show me how far behind I am, with the latest facts in Cosmological thinking.




.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5