Galaxy Left Behind?

Welcome new guy lightingbird :wave:


So ... No answer on the math? WtHeck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what exactly are your contributions to OP's MS 2143.4+0704 recessional velocity paradox? That we the idiots are just using algebra, well what are you using? Accusations?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now who is accusing? I just didn't know the math used. I seen letters and numbers. I only took math 1 & 2 in school.

Does this galaxy have a name?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's one the Host Galaxies of Three X-Ray Selected
BL Lacertae Objects.....

The last major observations I can find were from 1997 I think. Here are the published observations from HST.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9706028.pdf

 

Answer From NASA Astrophysicist

From NASA:

"Yes, this is probably a mistake.

Though cosmological corrections are needed to calculate accurate
distances to far away galaxies, we can ignore these to see if the 8
million Mpc number seems reasonable. 1 Mpc corresponds to the amount of
distance that light travels in around 3 million years (3 * 10^6 years),
so light that will travel for 8 million Mpc before reaching us would
have to leave the source 3*10^6 years/Mpc * 8*10^6 Mpc = 2*10^13 years
ago. On the other hand, the age of the universe is roughly 13 billion
years (13 * 10^9 years). The number in the table, then, suggests this
galaxy is much farther away than the edge of the observable universe,
and we have to conclude there is a mistake in the table.

I am sure the curators of the database would appreciate a polite note
about the mistake, if you would like to send one.

--
Jay and Jonah for Ask an Astrophysicist"

Soooo, probably is a mistake. I'll take his advice and contact the curators of the database. I'll let you know what they find... or correct.

 

Hey if it's not a mistake, can you mention me for being part of this uncovering too...don't forget your buddies.

 

It had to be a mistake since the distance was over 578 * > the radius of the observable universe.

 

It has to be a mistake. Do the math and then apologize to R1D2.

 

You know I will

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is a simple way to explain it. Say you had a dense mass that was physically expanding, due to a boom. Since mass density is decreasing, local space-time around the boom is expanding (mini big bang) so energy is red shifting in all directions. Volume is distance to the third power. while velocity is distance to the first power. If a mass went from 1 mm to 1 meter in 1 second, the velocity toward us is 1 meter per second, but the volume change is 1 billion times in one sec.

If instead of a boom, the same dense mass was moving at velocity V, away from us, that would also cause a red shift due to motion.

If both effects were occurring at the same time, the red shift would be the sum of the two effects. The way you explain the galaxy left behind is the sum of these two effect, add only to a smaller red shift. One way is no boom, but only velocity. This would suggest an younger galaxy that forms differently that the first boom galaxies. That would suggest that distances are being exaggerated because boom is ignore.

Some galaxies formed very early in the universe. It is easier to explain this if the original BB occurs via quantum fragmentations into huges massive chunks. These then popcorn up into the earliest galaxies in a short time, inspite of shear strains. Picrure a huge cluster bomb that breaks into mini bombs that then go mini big boom. This would make it appear space-time expands from each galaxy. It would then require you take into consideration volume change. The stray galaxy does not pose a problem.

 

So we could go with your ridiculous rambling anti-science and anti-logic explanation or we could go with it was just a simple mistake where the decimal point was probably dropped. Uh, I think the latter...

 

Though scientists have adjusted for some other redshift variables, the correct data appears to be 8,141.008 MPC distance, rather than 8,141,008 MPC. That's a factor of a thousand; meaning most likely the data was published as Parsecs, instead of Mega Parsecs. The raw redshift data is 2.037, so the velocity is reasonable considering the correction, matching my other example within reason. There is nothing completely unusual here, though Quasars do not exactly fit in to the box on every count. End of story pretty much.

And wellwisher, I already tackled your mini-expansion theory interpretation in another thread, but if you believe there are mini-expansions, they would appear blue shifted to us here, as the observer; ie a higher frequency/higher energy. Not to be smug, but I think you are not quite understanding your frame of reference, I think, in regards to red, or blue shifting of the spectrum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My first sentence in this thread, post #9: "Looks to me like there's an entry error in your chart." I said that for a reason. The distance had to be in error since it was over 578 * greater than the radius of the observable universe. I think I've mentioned that 3 or 4 times in the thread. Are you aware of what I said? I'm curious how the thread started? Did you find the entry error yourself and extrapolate it into the subject of the thread or did it come from somewhere else? Just curious. Good job getting to the bottom of it.

 

Yes I found the entry error myself; I just stumbled on it while scanning the data. It was clearly outside of the box, but figured the publishers would be more careful, so I just trusted the data meaning to me it was a curiosity. Turns out it was nothing of the sort. The database was about a decade old, but good in most respects. There are no ‘curators’ as such any longer, since the NED database of extragalactic objects in reformulated and republished and newly maintained. I have not even found the exact object in the new database, but in calculating the redshift interpolation attributing distance, and the recessional velocity, my final statement is an estimate in good faith that you and the NASA astrophysicist are correct. It's the best estimates we have at present, and they fit in to the current model quite well.

Here is where the current database is kept http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/

 

Good job Scott. Thanks for the details.