looking at the start of the universe

[(Q)]

Q:

I believe you are highly confused.

:roflmao:

There are not distant galaxies, of which I am aware, that are moving towards us. They are all receding from us. If they were moving towards us, they would have a blue-shift. Because they all have red-shifts, we interpret that as moving away from us. We cannot detect their motion by any other means.

So, essentially, you are now claiming that only galaxies in our local vicinity can be moving in different directions and not any distant galaxies.

And, I'm the one who is confused?

So, from the distant galaxies perspective, they'll see galaxies here moving in different directions, because they are, and should see the ones moving towards them as blue-shifted?

I doubt that any astronomer can reference a distant galaxy that is moving towards us. They always determine their velocity by the red-shift or blue-shift.

You can bet your last dollar there are galaxies moving towards us, and they WILL be red-shifted. Why? Expansion.

 

[2inquisitive]

Walter Wagner,

2Inquisitive: Do you know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us?

I haven't time right now to do any further reading, but no, I do not remember any observations of distant (one billion light years or more) galaxies moving toward us. I believe nine galaxies in the Virgo cluster are moving toward us, plus four more that haven't been confirmed to belong to the Virgo cluster. The center of the Virgo cluster is about 50 million light years distant and is the point our local group of 35 galaxies is collapsing toward, due to gravitational attraction. Our cluster, the Virgo cluster and several more clusters are supposed to be collapsing toward the so-named Great Attractor, a super cluster of immense mass and density. I don't remember the details as to how that was determined, or if it is still a consensus prediction, and I don't recall anything about any observed blue-shifts.
I think yourself and (Q) are both only considering single contributions to the observed red-shift of very distant galaxies. Walter, you seem to believe all the red-shift is due to velocity-induced Doppler effect. (Q) seems to believe almost all the red-shift of very distant galaxies is due to cosmological red-shift, the expansion of space-time. I believe the current consensus is that both Doppler effect and cosmological red-shift contribute a part. That is why (Q) thinks a distant galaxy could be moving toward us and still exibit a cosmological redshift, the wavelength could be stretched from the blue-shift range into the red-shift range. I think the actual recessional velocity would still be in excess of any relative motion in our direction, even though a hypothetical galaxy could have a significant velocity in our direction relatative to other galaxies in its neighborhood.
That does bring up another point that I have read about. The apparent brightness of type 1a supernovas are one of the methods of estimating great distances, thus they are the target of several scientific experiments. It has recently been confirmed that some of the supernovas exibit quite a bit greater redshift than the parent galaxies they are located in. The exploding shell of the supernova is moving toward our line of sight at great velocity, so it seems to me that approaching shell should exibit less red-shift, not greater, than the parent galaxy according to accepted theory. I will post some links later when I have more time to search for the newer material I have read in the last two or three years.

 

[(Q)]

(Q) seems to believe almost all the red-shift of very distant galaxies is due to cosmological red-shift, the expansion of space-time. I believe the current consensus is that both Doppler effect and cosmological red-shift contribute a part.

I too, consider the Doppler effect to contribute, but it is usually overshadowed by cosmological redshift.

That is why (Q) thinks a distant galaxy could be moving toward us and still exhibit a cosmological redshift, the wavelength could be stretched from the blue-shift range into the red-shift range. I think the actual recessional velocity would still be in excess of any relative motion in our direction, even though a hypothetical galaxy could have a significant velocity in our direction relative to other galaxies in its neighborhood.

That is correct.

But, does Walter agree?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Andrew:

You wrote with respect to the CMB-emitter as follows:

"However, your theory would sudjest that that peice would have to be moving faster than the previouse.
How can this be explained?"

First: Suggest, not sudjest; piece, not peice; previous, not previouse.

Second: That is correct, as time passes, we will constantly see a more distant CMB-emitter. Each such "piece" is of ever greater distance from us. Greater distance implies greater redshift implies greater recessional velocity. If we go out and measure the CMB 100 years from now, it will have a greater red-shift than when we measured it a few years ago. Had it been measured 5 billion years ago, when Earth was forming, the CMB would have had a much lesser red-shift, and we would not have been able to see as far away as we can see now. We can only see, via photons that travel at finite speed, a finite portion of the Universe.


2Inquisitive:

You wrote:

"I]I haven't time right now to do any further reading, but no, I do not remember any observations of distant (one billion light years or more) galaxies moving toward us.[/I]"

Thank you for confirming that there are no distant galaxies moving towards us. I believe you also agree with my statement that the only way we can determine the motions of distant galaxies is by whether they have a red-shift or blue-shift. We do not see them change their relative positions in the sky over time.

With respect to the nearby Virgo cluster, and other nearby clusters, which like our local cluster, are gravitationally bound to some other "great attractor" cluster, there can be localized motion within the cluster that has a net greater effect of motion towards us, compared to the general slight recessional motion of that very near-by local cluster, giving a slight blue-shift to some of those galaxies within that nearby cluster.

With respect to your quote:

"It has recently been confirmed that some of the supernovas exibit quite a bit greater redshift than the parent galaxies they are located in." [Note: exhibit, not exibit.]

I agree this does seem to be an enigma. It would superficially appear, as you also said, that the shock-wave moving towards us should lessen the red-shift. However, I haven't read about this at all, as of yet, and there might be other explanations. Perhaps we don't see the shock wave moving towards us as easily as we see the one moving away from us? Though I don't know how or why that should be. Perhaps the supernova is actually in a more distant galaxy in the same line of sight [and obscured by the galaxy in view], and they are erroneously concluding it is in the galaxy they have in their view.

I would appreciate further information about this. I suspect the latter explanation is the answer; unless there are LOTS of such anomalous supernovae.

I would suggest you cogitate on Andrew's pertinent, and correct, conclusion he drew from my writings. You have to actually visualize a shell ["piece"] of matter [hot plasma], at great distance from us, surrounding our Solar System, that is receding. That is one remnant of the BB. Beyond that shell is another shell, still hotter, that we can't see yet, but will become manifest in the future, also as a CMB-emitter. Thus, we continuously see a CMB as time passes, that is receding at closer and closer to c.

Regards,


Walter

----------

 

[Saquist]

Diverging, not converging.

you're correct of course. The EM and the force of Gravity according to theory diverge from each other after there close confinement at the hear of the big bang....thanks.

Saquist,

No, I've never read any thing of that sort. I am neither cosmologist or physicist. My views are from what I've read while trying to understand what science currently says about what the universe is like. Speculation about such things doesn't change what is observed today.

In post #38 I mentioned that recession of some galaxies are faster than light. This was ignored, like everything that else that contradicts the view that the expansion is like an explosion. Walter says the CMB is receding at near relativistic speeds. If objects recede faster the the farther away they are, then he must believe that there is nothing receding faster than the speed of light. This is not the mainstream view. In the LCDM model(this model is the one most widely accepted by cosmologist, due to it most closely fitting the observations and calculations.)not only is there faster than light recession, the rate of expansion is increasing. If the expansion was like an explosion, the expansion would be slowing down with the decrease in kinetic energy due to increased area the explosion was expanding into. The only way to explain the faster than light recession is the expansion of space. Otherwise it violates the speed of light.

I will again post links to a couple of websites than cover the current interpretation of General Relativity and the mainstream view in cosmology.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/

These helped me with my understanding of the current science and what it says about the universe. I encourage anyone, that wishes to know where we are, in our attempt to unravel the mysteries of the universe, to visit these websites.

There's nothing I can say that isn't covered on these sites, so this is my last post in this thread.

Wilgory

Those are redshift riddles. that you mention about galaxies that seem to be receeding at near light speeds. I believe those are Quasars. But NOTE... Quasars and like phenomenon really are riddles. Receeding at incredible speeds and yet some have litteral attack ments to near by galaxies. What exactly we're looking at we don't know and the Redshift could be a mistake. We're also moving inanother direction the relative speed could acount for such speed but I'm sure that has been accounted for too.

 

[(Q)]

Thank you for confirming that there are no distant galaxies moving towards us.

Are you joking? Are you claiming that there are no galaxies moving towards us?

I believe you also agree with my statement that the only way we can determine the motions of distant galaxies is by whether they have a red-shift or blue-shift. We do not see them change their relative positions in the sky over time.

Distant galaxies will have redshifts regardless of their relative motions, as they are ALL being carried along with the expansion of the universe, as per observations.

With respect to the nearby Virgo cluster, and other nearby clusters, which like our local cluster, are gravitationally bound to some other "great attractor" cluster, there can be localized motion within the cluster that has a net greater effect of motion towards us, compared to the general slight recessional motion of that very near-by local cluster, giving a slight blue-shift to some of those galaxies within that nearby cluster.

And will a distant galaxy see a blueshift or redshift?

I would suggest you cogitate on Andrew's pertinent, and correct, conclusion he drew from my writings. You have to actually visualize a shell ["piece"] of matter [hot plasma], at great distance from us, surrounding our Solar System, that is receding. That is one remnant of the BB. Beyond that shell is another shell, still hotter, that we can't see yet, but will become manifest in the future, also as a CMB-emitter. Thus, we continuously see a CMB as time passes, that is receding at closer and closer to c.

This thread will need to be moved to Psuedoscience as Walter wishes to continue pressing his pet theories.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Q:

Here's what I wrote to 2Inquisitive:

"Do you know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us?"

Here's what 2Inquisitive wrote back in response to my post:

"I haven't time right now to do any further reading, but no, I do not remember any observations of distant (one billion light years or more) galaxies moving toward us."

Here's what I wrote back in response to 2Inquisitive:

"Thank you for confirming that there are no distant galaxies moving towards us."

Underlining above was added for emphasis.

Here's what you wrote in response to my thanking 2Inquisitive for confirming that there are no distant galaxies moving towards us:

"Are you joking? Are you claiming that there are no galaxies moving towards us?"


Now, just where the heck do you come off with such an attitude? You are either not reading the posts, or deliberately mis-interpreting them. That was the exact same kind of behavior of IAC a few months back.

Now, with respect to the few nearby galaxies that have small blue-shifts, even if their cluster as a whole is receding from us with a small red-shift, go back and read my post.

 

[2inquisitive]

OK, here is a little more for Walter and (Q) to think about in their disagreement about whether very distant galaxies are moving 'through' space or if 'space' is expanding.

It is a question that I am not positive as to the correct answer. I do know about the 'cosmological principle' and its application to (Q)'s viewpoint. I'll start with some of the latest measurements and their implication.

Cosmologists have determined the following motions (peculiar velocities) in our local universe. (1) Our Local Group (LG) of galaxies is moving at 627kms (+ or minus 22kms) relative to the CMB and our LG's vector of motion, its 'direction', within the CMB. (2) Our sun's velocity relative to the 'rest frame' of the Local Group is 306kms due to the gravitational attraction within the LG. (3) Our sun's velocity relative to the CMB is 369kms. As one can see, there is quite a bit of motion within our local spot in the visible universe. The main observation to consider with regard to the disagreement is the motion of our Local Group of galaxies with respect to the CMB, point number 1.

Now Walter, a question for you. The radiation from your 'CMB emmiter' is radiation from the plasma that eventually formed galaxies like our own, but in a different part of our universe. Those distant galaxies should have relative motions in their own local groups similar to our local group in our part of the universe. The question to you, Walter, is (A) Do you believe those distant galaxies would measure peculiar velocities relative to the CMB similar to what we measure in our part of the universe? By this, I mean do you think their measurements would in the hundreds of kilometers per second range, or in the hundreds of thousands of kilometers per second relative to the CMB in their region of the universe? Current consensus and the cosmological principle states that observers in those distant galaxy groups would measure their motions relative to the CMB in their region much the same as we do in our region, in the hundreds of kms, not in the hundreds of thousands of kms. The reason, of course, is that those distant galaxy groups came into existence and are carried along by the flow of the 'CMB-emitter' in their region of the universe. That is what is meant by the great relative recessional velocities are due to 'space expanding' and not due to 'motion through space'. Do you agree with this explanation?

Now a question for both (Q) and Walter. Those early and distant galaxies were born with a great recessional velocity relative to us, even though they are not moving at a great velocity relative to their own local spacetime. What causes the wavelength of the light emitted from those galaxies to 'stretch' to an even greater redshift on its way to us, the cosmological redshift? It seems to me that the only explanation is the 'fabric' of the vacuum is expanding. The vacuum is 'something' that affects the propagation of light, not 'nothingness'. And that 'something' seems to change over time, stretching the wavelength or light's velocity in the early epoch verses the modern epoch of the vacuum. IMHO, the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum changes over time as the universe expands and fabric of the vacuum 'thins out'.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

2Inquisitive:

I posted about two minutes before you, so you likely did not see my earlier post [#107]. Would you agree that Q is being deliberately baiting of me, or otherwise trying to put words in my mouth that I'm not stating?

With respect to your post [#108], I would like to quote a statement with which I entirely agree:

"Those early and distant galaxies were born with a great recessional velocity relative to us, even though they are not moving at a great velocity relative to their own local spacetime."

You seem to understand the fact that the CMB-emitter is matter separate and distinct from the galaxies that we see and has since transformed into galaxies, and galaxy clusters - - we just can't see it as such as of yet. It is very far away, much farther away than the most distant galaxies we can see [and I've read reports that the most distant observed galaxies have red-shifts indicating a distance of some 9 billion light years]. Instead, we see that region of the Universe as it looked in some of its earliest condition; namely a hot plasma expanding into space forming cooling Hydrogen and Helium. Closer to us, we see portions of the Universe [i.e. galaxies] in conditions as they would have been still later, after the H/He had expanded, cooled, and then gravitationally contracted into stars and primitive galaxies.

If you examine the formula for calculating red-shift, you'll see it is not linear, but exponential as the speed increases closer to c. As the recessional velocity gets closer to the speed of light, the red-shift increases dramatically. [This makes sense in GR, but I won't go into the details here.] At a recessional velocity of 0.999999 c, the red-shift is 1,000. Hence, a hot plasma receding from us at that speed would have its black-body spectrum shifted from that of a 2,700 degree K black-body to one of a stationary 2.7 degree K black-body.

I'm not exactly certain how best to explain to you the GR effects on light from a rapidly receding body. Suffice it to say that that CMR-emitter plasma emitted light that is just now getting here from when it was emitted near to this general vicinity. Due to the fast recessional velocity, we see that light highly red-shifted [stretched-out] and interpret it to mean that that CMR-emitter is very very distant currently [in our reference frame]. There are several papers written about that, explaining both red-shift, and how the red-shift of a receding body equates to the spectrum of a stationary body. I have those in my archives, but I'll look for them for references for you.

With respect to your statement quoted below:

"Current consensus and the cosmological principle states that observers in those distant galaxy groups would measure their motions relative to the CMB in their region much the same as we do in our region, in the hundreds of kms, not in the hundreds of thousands of kms."

Yes, I agree, any observer [i.e. alien E.T.] in those regions would likely have local clusters of galaxies that are relatively nearby, some of which would, in their reference frame likely be moving towards that observer, rather than receding from the observer like their more distant galaxies, which would have red-shifts, including a very high red-shift for their respective CMB-emitter.

Too bad we can't see that part of the Universe yet.

Some have suggested, however that we could see through the CMB-emitter to the hotter region beyond [that we can't yet see], if we 'saw' with neutrinos, instead of with photons, which penetrate hot plasma much better. It appears that we would not be able detect such highly red-shifted neutrinos, though, with any detectors I know about. We're barely able to detect solar neutrinos.

 

[andbna]

You will have to excuse my spelling Walter.

Your theory then puts us in a conundrum:
Why would the CMB matter happen to be receding from us, as if we were in the center of an explosion? Inflation states that all distances increase, thus any refereance frame would appear to be the center one.
However, for mere doppler-based redshift, a different reference frame will yield different resaults.
Thus, if we looked at the CMB on a far away galaxy, we would actualy see it highly redshifted at one 'pole' and not very redshifted at the other (perhaps even blueshifted!)
This is because that other galaxy would not be at the center, and if it were far eanough away, might not even be able to see to the center, thus the CMB matter at one end would be heading towards it.

Allow me to illustrate my point:

Here we have our galaxy, blue, and a far off galaxy, magenta.
The yellow circle represents the CMB we see, the gray lines represent the velocity vectors of the CMB at a few points (as meaured by redshift due to doppler effect).
We can see all vectors in our yellow circle are pointing away from us and have the same magnitude (the CMB is redshifted the same everywhere, almost completely isotropic.)
Point C shows what we would see of the CMB if we allowed time to progress eanough to view it: a verly large redshift.
Because in your theory the CMB matter was moving and thus light was dopplershifted, the magenta galaxy should see the same vectors we do: that is, at point A, one pointing towards it (blueshift) and at point C a very large one pointing away: allot of redshift.

This makes us at the center location of where, billions of years ago, CMB matter seems to have exploded outward. Not only would this indicate a center of the universe, but also that we happen to be in it.
Not likely.

Unless I have made a mistake.

Also, you did not answer my second question in the previouse post: What caused the universe to cool if not an increase in volume (expansion and inflation)?

-Andrew

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Andrew:

You made a mistake.

The magenta dot [beyond our 'edge', i.e. beyond the CMB-emitter we see via its photons] is moving even more rapidly away from us [greater than 0.9999991 c]. An observer there, looking in our direction, would not yet be able to see us [the Milky Way] as we are now, as we lie beyond its CMB-emitter 'edge' of its visible universe, but it would infer that we are rapidly receding from it, and will eventually become visible, initially as its future CMB, and as time passed in its reference frame, it would see the Milky Way in its earliest existence.

As to your second question, matter/energy is indeed expanding, and thus cooling. As it expands and cools, it forms into hot H/He, which continues to expand and cool, forming relatively transparent H/He. Eventually, some of it gravitationally contracts back to form clouds of cold H/He gas, which can collide and form stars, galaxies, etc.

 

[andbna]

Hmm, Ok, I see now.

However, your answer to my second question raises more: how is it expanding? And into what?
Empty space I can presume, in which case your theory would indicate the universe at t=0 had all the matter compacted into a very tiny dot, yet the spatial dimensions were still billions or trillions (however longthey are now) of lightyears long. Why would the matter have been compacted like this?
Does this not then indicate a center to the universe, and that the BB was indeed an explosion into space?

-Andrew

 

[(Q)]

Q:

Here's what I wrote to 2Inquisitive:

"Do you know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us?"

Here's what 2Inquisitive wrote back in response to my post:

"I haven't time right now to do any further reading, but no, I do not remember any observations of distant (one billion light years or more) galaxies moving toward us."

Here's what I wrote back in response to 2Inquisitive:

"Thank you for confirming that there are no distant galaxies moving towards us."

Underlining above was added for emphasis.

Bold was added for emphasis.

I'd like to know how you equate a single persons memory to universal confirmation? The fact that 2Inquisitive, or any other single person, doesn't recall observing an event doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened, especially when there is direct evidence amongst our local galaxies that such an event IS taking place.

You're getting more ridiculous with each post.

Galaxies have relative motion THROUGH space in all different directions with some of them coming directly towards us. In our local cluster, their relative motion through space supersedes cosmological redshift and we will observe them blueshifted, while distant galaxies relative velocities will be overcome by the expansion of space, hence they will be redshifted.

At this time, you've yet to produce anything that would back your claims, yet you continue to pursue your pet theory.

And, it's unfortunate that the OP was a legitimate question and you've derailed the thread with your assertions.

Off to Pseudoscience.

 

[andbna]

There is NO WAY this belongs in pseudoscience.
Walter has sofar presented a theory using available evidence, which takes a different interpretation of this evidance than the currently accepted expansion theory.
In fact, I can somewhat agree with it, though I am still asking questions about it.
This is no more pseudoscientific than expansion theory. Less complete, perhaps, not unscientific.

-Andrew

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Evidently, Q is not used to valid criticisms of himself, and he has decided to censor this from the science forum, because he is apparently some kind of pseudoscientist, one could assume.

As to Q's last question, I do not equate a single persons recollections [such as 2Inquisitive's] as absolute evidence of confirmation. Rather, it is a good first start. If, on the other hand, Q has any evidence that there are DISTANT galaxies that have a blue-shift, he is free to put up, instead of censoring myself, 2Inquisitive, and every other cosmologist who would agree that there are no distant galaxies that have blue shifts, only red shifts.

I guess the truth hurts when its revealed for everyone else to see, right Q?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Now move this thread back to where it was, or we'll be reporting you, and starting anew.

 

[2inquisitive]

No need to get too worked up over it, Walter. It's just (Q)'s way. It made me recall something I said to him years ago.

I once told him he could refuse to look and stick his head in the sand like an ostrich, but his big ass was still exposed for all the world to see. No offense, (Q), just a little joke!

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Thanks for the words of encouragement. Please note I've sent you a PM.
I'll not be posted further on this thread, because if you'll note, I almost exclusively post in the science and technology forums. Perhaps we could boycott the Astronomy forum, and post those threads in the Physics forum instead.

 

[(Q)]

Gentlemen, no need to be offended.

The opening posts question was not posted for Walter to introduce his pet theory. It's creator was looking for answers, not assertions.

If Walter wishes to pursue his pet theory, he may do so by starting another thread, or continue here in the appropriate forum.

 

[(Q)]

There is NO WAY this belongs in pseudoscience.
Walter has sofar presented a theory using available evidence, which takes a different interpretation of this evidance than the currently accepted expansion theory.
In fact, I can somewhat agree with it, though I am still asking questions about it.
This is no more pseudoscientific than expansion theory. Less complete, perhaps, not unscientific.

-Andrew

No, Andrew, the concept of objects hurtling through space was dismissed years ago, because that concept DOES NOT follow observations.

For some reason, Walter wishes to resurrect this concept and pursue it without posting a single source to his assertions. Why? There aren't any.

He is also claiming current observations simply don't exist; ie. galaxies are not moving in different directions.

He is claiming massive kinetic energies from receding galaxies, yet there are none to be found.

He is making a number of assertions that have been dismissed or refuted long ago.

Yes, Andrew, Walter IS pursuing unscientific assertions, hence it should be in Pseudoscience.