Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

For that matter, take any introductory physics text, and show the error. I believe he mis-spoke. Happens a lot around here. Red shift is always a lengthening of wave-length (with concomitant lowering of frequency to keep the speed at c), with a lower energy for the resultant photon.

And if the Southern Hemisphere of the CBR (microwave) as measured by Planck is slightly 'warmer' (towards infrared) than the Northern Hemisphere of the entire universe of CBR, could this not also be a Doppler (red shift) effect we are observing, and on the largest possible scale? Why isn't this fact a part of "mainstream" cosmology? It doesn't seem like it is being taken into account at all, by anyone.

Isn't this something like examining epicycles (red shifts of everything else) in great detail and missing the idea that something is wrong with the whole Ptolemaic paradigm? Anyone else got a 'stack of turtles' problem with this?
 
So, you're upset that apparently, nobody is taking into account something that you aren't sure exists. Try reading to see what is or isn't seen and what is or isn't taken into account.
 
For that matter, take any introductory physics text, and show the error. I believe he mis-spoke. Happens a lot around here. Red shift is always a lengthening of wave-length (with concomitant lowering of frequency to keep the speed at c), with a lower energy for the resultant photon.
He did not misspeak, he really does deny what those physics textbooks say. He has decided what statements in physics are and are not true without actually working through physics in any other way than cherry-picking quotations.
 
So, you're upset that apparently, nobody is taking into account something that you aren't sure exists. Try reading to see what is or isn't seen and what is or isn't taken into account.

Read (from March, 2013):

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...g-finds-the-universe-is-older-than-we-thought

second paragraph excerpt:

"...the southern hemisphere of the universe is a little warmer than the northern hemisphere."

I read about the effect in dozens of places, PhysBang, right after the Planck results were released. The difference was too small for WMAP to notice, apparently.

The Planck was a fine instrument. I'm sure the slight temperature difference exists with the same certainty that any of us have about experiments we didn't perform ourselves. I'm only saying, I haven't seen any papers about the temperature difference as a possible Doppler shift. That's unfortunate, because the profile would fit. If the whole universe is approaching or receding, you would notice it was slightly warmer in one direction, colder in exactly the opposite direction.

For all you know, it could all just be a stack of turtles. Or pancakes. With butter and maple syrup. Yum.

Don't you feel left out? Everyone else got banned for trolling. By all means, continue.
 
The most obvious source for such a signal would be galactic motion relative to the rest frame of the CMB. I'm sure i if you look at any Planck-related paper that mentions this supposed feature, they will bring up this source.

And what does any off this have to do with redshift introducing energy loss?
 
The most obvious source for such a signal would be galactic motion relative to the rest frame of the CMB. I'm sure i if you look at any Planck-related paper that mentions this supposed feature, they will bring up this source.

And what does any of this have to do with redshift introducing energy loss?

I'm not suggesting this idea is in support of the "tired photon" theory at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. Photons may follow curved trajectories around masses before they reach us. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests most red or blue shifts observed are from causes other than relative motion (redshift is by far the biggest effect, and likely from universe expansion) or from gravitationally induced time dilation.

To determine a relative velocity of any single object or even group of objects from Doppler shift, one either has to know all of the previous accelerations and forces involved, or else measure all of the shifts in the vicinity and make an estimate using incomplete data. This will not always yield results that make sense for a particular observation, and many anomalous redshifts have been observed. The CMB energy difference, if it is from a Doppler shift, suggests that yet another correction factor (and there are already dozens of these) needs to be applied to everything observable in the Northern Hemisphere as opposed to the South. If it is not considered to be a Doppler shift, why does a difference exist in a universe that seems predominantly isotropic?

Like much of mainstream cosmology, I have only the question; no answer.
 
I'm not suggesting this idea is in support of the "tired photon" theory at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. Photons may follow curved trajectories around masses before they reach us. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests most red or blue shifts observed are from causes other than relative motion (redshift is by far the biggest effect, and likely from universe expansion) or from gravitationally induced time dilation.
Cosmological redshift isn't from relative motion, it is from the difference in scale factor over time. This introduces redshift for systems of coordinates where the emitter and receiver are stationary relative to each other over time.
The CMB energy difference, if it is from a Doppler shift, suggests that yet another correction factor (and there are already dozens of these) needs to be applied to everything observable in the Northern Hemisphere as opposed to the South. If it is not considered to be a Doppler shift, why does a difference exist in a universe that seems predominantly isotropic?

Like much of mainstream cosmology, I have only the question; no answer.
Then I suggest that you take the time to read the literature, since questions like this are routinely asked and answered. There is a much larger difference than the one you are discussing which might exist. This one is due to motion relative to the CMB: the motion of the Earth around the sun. It is not surprising that we might find other anisotropies that arise from the motion of our galaxy or our galaxy cluster.
 
Hubble's law and postulates of Big Bang says that all the Galaxies are moving away from us. The general mapping of universe around us (barring the Milky Way Obstruction area) also confirms that our universe is Isotropic and Homogeneous, it is also well settled that we occupy no special place in the Universe.

Our Galaxy is moving with reference to some Extra Galactic Reference at a speed of around 600 Km / Sec, based on Hubble Law and Red shift observed we have concluded that a few distant Galaxies are moving away from us at a speed of around 30000 Km/Sec.

Since our Universe is Isotropic and Homogeneous, so it does not matter if we are observing from Earth or from any point on any other Galaxy which is moving away at a speed of 30000 Km/Sec from us. Since we are moving at a speed of 600 Km/ sec, the least speed of this Galaxy would be around 29400 Km/Sec. Now if we put an observer somewhere on this Galaxy, then also we will see the same kind of isotropic and Homo map of galaxies and stars around it. So…

a. Applicability of Hubble's law will soon make a Galaxy run away at a speed of light. That’s some speed for such a huge mass. Here comes Gravity Red Shift?

Note: All my answers will relate to interpretations of the Big Bang model, which is not necessarily a testament to the model's validity.

Galactic redshifts are a correlation of galactic redshifts to distances. The Hubble formula was derived from Special Relativity and relative motion. According to the Big Bang model (BB) space is expanding. We cannot observe this at stellar scales, not even at galactic scales concerning out Local Group or maybe even our local galaxy cluster Virgo. We have to go to super-cluster distances to observe galactic redshifts without major relative motion.

As to your question, there is no real motion involved with the concept of expanding space, so velocity is not involved.

b. We would be a very remote Galaxy for this shifted observer, so how come we are traveling at a very low speed (leave aside the relative aspect). This observation indicates that there got be some special place.

Again, there is no speed or velocity involved according to the hypothesis of expanding space.

c. There are few blue shifted Galaxies also, including our Andromeda, wherein we expect to collide in next 4 b years? Why ? The explanation is that they are all in local groups and have some peculiar velocity. Universe is Homogeneous and Isotropic, so why this peculiar velocities for our Local Group. Even some of very far Galaxy or cloud systems are giving blue shift that directly violates Hubble law.

This is a very common misconception. There are over 7,000 blue shifted galaxies and counting, most are only very slightly blueshifted. All are thought to be within the local Group and supercluster Virgo and all are thought to involve relative motion as being the cause of blueshifting.

http://fittedplane.blogspot.com/2009/12/blue-shifted-galaxies-there-are-more.html

d. The balloon analogy of space expansion does not explain this vast difference in the speed of Galaxies, moreover if the space itself is expanding, then how can we collide with Andromeda in 4b years, fine there must be some Gravitational pull between the two, but was it present from the day these Galaxies were born, because new pull can only become effective if the rate of amassing the peripheral mass is much faster then the rate of space expansion.

e. Why there is a total absence of expansion of inside of Galaxy or Solar System. A dot on the baloon surface expands with its skin. An expansion which can cause huge speeds for Galaxies, cannot per say disturb the internal arrangement ? It is also not the case that Gravitational pull of constituents is a very strong force?

At very close distances such as within our galaxy and our closest large galaxy Andromeda, the expansion of space is not observable.

f. Why is that our Solar System which has passed many a times (around 20?) through the Density Wave Arms region of our Galaxy, and still surviving with its planets? Density wave region is supposed to be great breeding place for new stars, obviously its not a smooth high speed expressway for our solar system? Or we can say that it ducks or jumps this region and gets out of the plane and moves either up or down?

The density wave hypothesis is presently entirely dependent on the dark matter hypothesis, both of which are hypothetical since there is no direct evidence for their existence.

g. How can a Galaxy maintain its basic structure with an observation that the orbital speeds of all the stars is almost same (leave aside near to center stars)? The closer stars will move faster angular-ly leaving behind the distant stars, thus changing the basic structure of the Galaxy. So the shape we see today of our galaxy (in photo of course), is it the same when our Sun was born (around 4b years ago)? The point is what are we seeing in the photo (the present or may be few billion years ago shape?)

The Big Bang model has a number of different hypothesis to explain your question but no consensus explanation that I know of.

h. Gravitational lensing is a great observation, great analysis. My only question is if you bend the light angular-ly, that means some deceleration has taken place. How does it justify the constancy of light? I can tell you fall below c and Energy is no longer Energy, it becomes Mass+Energy, and then the poor combo cannot make it to Earth.

The aspect of the speed of light (SOL) that most students don't understand is that the SOL is a ratio of distance traveled per unit of time. As the distance travels decreases so does the rate of time which maintains the constant ration and the SOL.
i. Inflation is supposed to be microscopic expansion from a singular particle of infinite density with a faster than light speed. Relativity is violated even after t = 0?
j. And by the way if it was faster than light, why no traces of anything moving at faster than light (even if we take relative speeds can we get more than 2c?)

Inflation is also a group of hypotheses that proposes physics unique to the hypotheses themselves. Faster than the SOL is a requirement of these hypothesis and the ending of the Inflation period is also part of the numerous related hypothesis.
 
Why is that our Solar System which has passed many a times (around 20?) through the Density Wave Arms region of our Galaxy, and still surviving with its planets? Density wave region is supposed to be great breeding place for new stars, obviously its not a smooth high speed expressway for our solar system? Or we can say that it ducks or jumps this region and gets out of the plane and moves either up or down?
The density wave hypothesis is presently entirely dependent on the dark matter hypothesis, both of which are hypothetical since there is no direct evidence for their existence.
A bit of a clarification here. Both the Density Wave Arm Theory and Dark Matter Theory are not hypotheises, they are theories.
The Density Wave theory is NOTcompletely dependent on Dark Matter, which is why it was able to predict the same effect in the rings of Saturn.

How can a Galaxy maintain its basic structure with an observation that the orbital speeds of all the stars is almost same (leave aside near to center stars)? The closer stars will move faster angular-ly leaving behind the distant stars, thus changing the basic structure of the Galaxy. So the shape we see today of our galaxy (in photo of course), is it the same when our Sun was born (around 4b years ago)? The point is what are we seeing in the photo (the present or may be few billion years ago shape?)
The Big Bang model has a number of different hypothesis to explain your question but no consensus explanation that I know of.
The Big Bang Theory does not attempt to explain the shape of galaxies that is explained by gravity and dark matter.

The aspect of the speed of light (SOL) that most students don't understand is that the SOL is a ratio of distance traveled per unit of time.
Huh? The speed of light is simply the distance traveled per unit time.

As the distance travels decreases so does the rate of time which maintains the constant ration and the SOL.
Huh? Are you saying the rate (relative to what?) of time is different if light is traveling 10 ft or 100 ft???

Inflation is also a group of hypotheses that proposes physics unique to the hypotheses themselves. Faster than the SOL is a requirement of these hypothesis and the ending of the Inflation period is also part of the numerous related hypothesis.
No, inflation is part of the big bang theory. It is not a 'group of hypotheises'.
 
Greetings RajeshTrivedi! I see you are trying to make sense of mainstream cosmology...
(Replying to a BB/Inflationary model of universal/spacetime evolution) You have developed this severe tendency of foot in mouth syndrome..Take some rest, cosmology and its prevalent theories will stay put even without your defense and of course even with as you mistakenly call agenda driven questions.
...which as you now see in abundance, cannot be done.

So have you read Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" and the implications of his Plasma Cosmology? It gets rid of dark matter & through Winston Bostick's work, confirms that the cosmological redshift is indeed an indicator of velocity between source and observer.

Look forward to hearing from you.

FOLZONI
 
Greetings RajeshTrivedi! I see you are trying to make sense of mainstream cosmology...
...which as you now see in abundance, cannot be done.

So have you read Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" and the implications of his Plasma Cosmology? It gets rid of dark matter & through Winston Bostick's work, confirms that the cosmological redshift is indeed an indicator of velocity between source and observer.

Look forward to hearing from you.

FOLZONI

I suppose you have read the site rules in another sock and don't need to be reminded that the nonsense goes to the fringe section below. :rolleyes:
 
Greetings RajeshTrivedi! I see you are trying to make sense of mainstream cosmology...
...which as you now see in abundance, cannot be done.

So have you read Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" and the implications of his Plasma Cosmology? It gets rid of dark matter & through Winston Bostick's work, confirms that the cosmological redshift is indeed an indicator of velocity between source and observer.

Learner's book is pseudo-science junk written by a hack.

Here is a discussion about the multitude of errors in the book by a professor of astronomy.
 
No I did not realize that Eric Lerner - a practical researcher into nuclear fusion power - was classified HERE as 'fringe' or 'nonsense'. His powerful understanding of cosmology still resonates today, albeit that some parts are incomplete or obsolete.

FOLZONI
 
Last edited:
No I did not realize that Eric Lerner - a practical researcher into nuclear fusion power - was classified HERE as 'fringe' or 'nonsense'.

I don't really know what Lerner's background or accomplishments are nor does it have any bearing. I am only commenting on his book which is most definitely fringe and psuedo-science tripe.

That is not just the belief here, it is also the belief of the scientific community in general.
 
Well I would have to agree...
I don't really know what Lerner's background or accomplishments are nor does it have any bearing. I am only commenting on his book which is most definitely fringe and psuedo-science tripe.

That is not just the belief here, it is also the belief of the scientific community in general.
...100%, but beliefs change with new discoveries, and theories!

FOLZONI
 
Well I would have to agree...
...100%, but beliefs change with new discoveries, and theories!

FOLZONI

I suspect he knows these ideas are tripe. That makes sense as to why he did not subject his ideas to peer review but instead wrote a pop pseudo-science book instead.

There is a fairly large audience for this type of crap, isn't there?;)

I am getting a sense of sock puppet deja vu....
 
Huh? Are you saying the rate (relative to what?) of time is different if light is traveling 10 ft or 100 ft???

As light slows down relative to itself (due to relative speed or relative position to the center of gravity) so does time. In this way the speed of light remains constant.

No, inflation is part of the big bang theory. It is not a 'group of hypotheses'.

Inflation is an accepted part of the BB model, but there are a number of different hypothesis that propose Inflation.
 
As light slows down relative to itself (due to relative speed or relative position to the center of gravity) so does time
I hope you are purposely try to be funny.

Inflation is an accepted part of the BB model, but there are a number of different hypothesis that propose Inflation.
Really what are these different hypotheses?
 
Back
Top