The essence of the redshift

[AlexG]

Originally Posted by esbo
Consider stuff on our side of the balloon, that is expanding towards us.
Stuff on the other side is expanding away from us, thus we would see that difference.

Remember that this is a two dimensional analogy. Only the outer skin of the balloon is in this analogy. As the outer skin streatches, every point on the surface of the balloon moves away from every other point. And the further apart two points are, the faster they move away from each other.

 

[leopold]

if we envision ourselves inside a balloon that is expanding then no matter where we are inside it every other particle is moving away from us.
we can easily conclude that we are at the "center" of the balloon, even though we might not be.

Is that realistic hypothesis ?

it's an analogy, not a hypothesis.
but yes, it's realistic.

 

[arauca]

No challenge bit question :
If Everything is moving away from everything else. I f my neighbor particle is moving she might move into my direction .

Ok the red shift of hydrogen atom spectra , that is our measuring device . I assume the movement is on a metric scale and the scale is converted into astronomical scale is that so. Please correct me if I am wronfg.

 

[AlexG]

If Everything is moving away from everything else. I f my neighbor particle is moving she might move into my direction .

If it were a case of moving through space you would be correct. However, it's not.

It you've got three particles, and the amount of space between each particle doubles, then each particle will be further away from the others.

 

[wlminex]

Re: AlexG, Post #20:

Yours-->"The expansion is occuring at every point in the universe."

I agree . . . as stated in my posts a few weeks ago (which you poo-poo'd as word salad!) . . . retrieve my earlier posts and re-read for comprehension!

wlminex

 

[Eagle9]

Here is a good example how the space is expanding

 

[AlphaNumeric]

No. That does not work does it.

Consider stuff on our side of the balloon, that is expanding towards us.
Stuff on the other side is expanding away from us, thus we would see that difference.

Eg out speed is V expansion is E, we would see some stuff expanding at V+E and some expanding at V-E thus we would see at two tone universe, or rather a multi tone universe.

That simply isn't the case.

The expansion would carry almost everything away from us, with the relative speed increasing with distance. Only in the local region could galaxies velocities be sufficiently high to over come the expansion and thus appear to be moving closer to us. For instance, Andromeda is moving towards us, as are a number of other local galaxies. Once you get out past a certain distance though all of the galaxies move away from us.

Even if the balloon analogy was valid to the level of the universe curving back on itself the expansion still carries things away from us, there wouldn't be the multi-tone universe you claim there would be. You should read a bit more about cosmology or learn some non-Euclidean differential geometry.

However we do not see that because we are at the centre of the universe.

Praise be to Allah.

Ah, that explains it. You are not being scientific and following the evidence, you have a presupposition and you're warping observations to fit what you want to be true. Well no matter how much you praise Allah, Jesus, Santa or Elton John, you're not right about what the big bang cosmology predicts.

It's not nonsense, I have just explained it to you.

I'm afraid your take on the BB model is nonsense. I suggest you learn some of it before trying to 'teach' others about it.

If you want to talk about nonsense just look at the big bang theory, more holes in it than a private health insurance policy.

Whereas Mohammed going up to heaven on a flying horse, jinn causing illnesses and the Quran saying salt and fresh water don't mix are all perfectly sound rational evidence based notations? The BB has produced predictions, they have been tested and vindicated. Furthermore, we continue to develop, test and refine the model as we learn more and if we learn something at odds with the model it will be replaced. I doubt you can say the same about your religion.

A bang with a centre yet it has no centre, if you can swallow carp like that without crying nonsense then you are in no position to criticise the obvious truth.

Pot calling kettle black me thinks!!!

You are blaming others for your own lack of understanding. You clearly haven't taken the time to find out what is actually said and how such conclusions are reached. Instead you 'know' the 'truth' (ie your holy book) and anything at odds with that you're going to dismiss and ridicule.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you for being Muslim, I'm having a go at you for being blinded by faith in religion. I have similar negative views of mindless Bible spouting Christians who denounce evolution or cosmology or geology because it clashes with their literal reading of the Bible.

You talk about us swallow crap but jinn? Flying horses? Praying the a meteorite fragment in Mecca? Look in the mirror!

 

[arauca]

Here is a good example how the space is expanding

Thank you for the picture : I am confused, What are we expanding from the big bang ? is it space with in the atom , The space that matter will occupy in the so called universe . No matter what we say the universe must have been there , matter will just fill the space . we don't know how big the universe is.

So I don't understand what is meant by space.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So I don't understand what is meant by space.

You and me both. The customary definition of space is "nothing." So to say that space is expanding is to say that nothing is expanding.

 

[OnlyMe]

You and me both. The customary definition of space is "nothing." So to say that space is expanding is to say that nothing is expanding.

The customary definition of space is "nothing."

This is not entirely true. While space could be considered commonly to be the distance between two objects or points and while within physics space is often referred to as "empty space", neither of these are a clear definition of space within physics.

Talking only of general relativity, space cannot be truly "empty" or nothing. Space interacts with matter or mass in such a way that it is curved both from a geodetic and a framed ragging perspective. This has been experimentally verified. So while space may be "empty" as far as our ability to observe and measure it directly is concerned, it cannot be thought of as "nothing", from the view point of physics.

Space interacts with matter. No one has yet provided any conclusive mechanism for how that interaction occurs, but once again it has been experimentally verified. So though we cannot with certainty define the "substance" of space we must accept that there is some essential and fundamental substance inherent to space, that results in the interaction of space and matter.

The expansion issue is a whole different animal. A remnant of past assumptions that have attained the status of a priori facts. The expanding universe is somewhat circular in reasoning and proofs at this point, as it involves redshifts in light spectrum, which itself is explained by the expansion. There are other models being explored. None with the same following as the big bang model and an expanding uiverse.