Cosmological Red Shift

You may.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure you'll also find my latest post (we cross-posted) very interesting.

By looking for the CMB dipole, then measuring how intense it is. The more intense, the faster we're moving relative to the CMB rest frame. If we hadn't found it then everyone would have been quite surprised; it would be very unlikely that the Earth would be at rest with respect to such a frame. It might well have caused us to question whether we had actually detected the CMB, and not some other more local effect, more likely to create a background in which the Earth appeared to be motionless.

No, because the CMB rest frame varies from one place to another in the universe. It's only motion relative to the local CMB rest frame.

It's only approximately isotropic. There are variations which have been charted with WMAP and Planck, all over the sky. These variations, however, are on the close order of a few percent, and most of them are on the close order of a few tenths of a percent; quite small, for something that violent. You can say it's isotropic and not be far wrong.

You can't assert that Earth has "a" proper motion. The question that must be asked when you say this is, "proper motion in what frame of reference?" Because otherwise talking about "Earth's proper motion" is meaningless.

The Big Bang was very, very slightly anisotropic; it's an error (and not supported by the evidence of WMAP, Planck, and many earlier experiments going back to the late 1960s (see the paper I linked above)) to state that the Big Bang must have made the universe perfectly isotropic. We can even see that in the galaxies; we now know that they are organized in "filaments" that span hundreds of millions and even up to tens of billions of light years. Those filaments are mostly dark matter, and they were formed as a result of slight anisotropies in the plasma of the Big Bang which later caused slight density fluctuations in the distribution of the dark matter, which were then amplified by gravitational attraction into the filaments we see today. Most if not all of the galaxies have formed along these filaments, as the normal matter was attracted by the dark matter.

Sure, man. No problemo. You're asking, and you're polite. I never mind answering polite people. I don't believe in being a dick to people who don't know as much as I do; I actually enjoy it or I wouldn't be here!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Done. Enjoy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Schneibster:

Thank you, Schneibster, for taking the time to help me better understand your discussion with Billy T regarding the specific aspects I mentioned.

I understand the relativity time dilation concept and implications. I also understand from relativity that timing "rate" varies according to two factors: 1) relative gravitational-well position and or 2) relative proper motion. I have not read anything in the theory that attributes space-time expansion TIME (or timing 'tick' rate) relativities involving along-with-expanding-space motions (which latter by theory definition is not proper motion since the local space is not expanding and any clock imbedded in that local space is effectively stationary (leaving aside normal through-space proper motion aspect) with respect to that local space immediately affecting its time or 'tick' rate).

However, such variations in 'rate' is, to follow my earlier analogy using dollar currency, merely a change in agreed standards value for one dollar. It is only the 'agreed' rate of exchange 'standards', not the underlying convenient transactional aspect, that changes. The nature of time and the rate of timing are, to my mind, based on my understanding of Einstein's relativity theory regarding time aspect, are two different things in practice and in logic. Hence I am still confused as to what you intended to convey in your assertion to Billy T on TIME aspect.

I understand that contraction concept as per theory. But I earlier mentioned that the photon has no frame associated with it either in theory or in practice. Is my understanding according to theory correct on that or incorrect? Please advise.

Since Thought Experiments are not about measurement but about conceptual understanding, Einstein used these to inform himself of the intrinsic as well as extrinsic properties and implications involved when facing "frame-less photon" motion and proper motions of bodies with frames associated with them. Consistent with that purpose and context, such a thought experiments is about arriving at some sort of insights and explanations for aspects which cannot practically or easily be determined in any other way (because of the reasons already mentioned: photon not having frame attached, etc). That is why in my mind Billy T's thought experiment is scientifically valid in context and relevance to the illustrative purpose for which he constructed that thought experiment.

As always, I am ready to be corrected by yourself, Billy T, or any other learned member who takes pity on my confusions and misunderstandings if that is shown to be what they are. Thanks for your kind help in this matter, Schneibster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wheewh! I was beginning to think I was the only one!

I believe I have also asked that question and am still waiting for an answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the seeds for galactic formation: One of the biggest slices of data from WMAP certainly.

 

Schneibster:

Thanks for your further research and relevant links explained by you in context of our discussion points. Very interesting; and vaguely remembered reading material which has formed part of my own subconscious understandings base for these questions on these aspects to you.

I understand the facts and concepts covered, but still have questions on your interpretations according to the context of your earlier CMB assertions to Billy T and your subsequent elaborations for my benefit.

From what I gather reading the expansion theory, the assumption of isotropic expansion is pretty close to being just that, isotropic, to within very small variations that in many ways could be assumed to fall within "margin of error" of the observational and analytical techniques applied to produce the 'map' of CMB's so-called "anisotropies".

In any case, as far as I can read the theory, local variations due to local gravitating energy concentrations (be these arranged in strings, filaments or isolated) only affect the emission wavelengths-frequencies at source and perceived frequency at remote receptors. The actual global distribution of the radiation itself is blackbody and so generally isotropic in any direction (besides allowing for relatively perceived variations due to receptor local proper motions like you explained regarding 'perceived' CMB 'dipole' effect).

So in my mind I see a distinction between wavelengths/frequencies inherent (before allowing for relative proper motion of Earth within that CMB 'frame' pattern) and the isotropic pattern which should look the same in all directions when a collection of 'test body' proper motions are used to establish the GLOBAL reference irrespective of any individual body's proper motion 'perceived dipole' measurement artifact with respect to CMB global pattern. Have I explained that distinction ok?

It is the CMB global pattern, rather than individual body motions and individual photon frequencies/wavelengths, that I see as the CMB rest frame which you mentioned earlier.

Again, I feel we need to use Einstein's and Billy T's type of thought experiments logic and purpose to separate the understood or yet to be quantified "measurables" from the logical insights which are inherent to considering CMB as isotropic in some throught experiment type way which is not dependent on measurables like frequency perceived etc, but the CMB pattern itself across all isotropically expanding observable universal space.

Your responses are helping me a lot, Schneibster. Thank you.

Oh, I just saw your further response. Will address that next post.

 

Something about "proper motion" tweaked my memory so I went and looked it up on Wikipedia. This term does not appear in discussions of relativity; only proper time does. So I first of all have to ask what exactly you mean by "proper motion." The standard definition is the observed motion of stars in the sky of Earth aside from the diurnal and annual rotation and revolution of Earth, corresponding to motions relative to the Sun of these stars (or, since it's a recurring subject in this thread, motion of the Sun and those stars relative to each other depending on the frame you choose). Obviously this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and apparently it also has nothing to do with relativity.

By the context of your use of proper motion, I can see that what you mean is motion with respect to some observer in his chosen frame. And that is correct; gravity and motion affect the observation of the rate of the passage of time at the observed, relative to what would be seen if the observed were in flat space, if the observed is in a gravity field or is in motion relative to the observer. GRT provides the transforms for the first, and SRT the transforms for the second.

The reason no one talks about it is because they all assume everyone knows it. If something is moving very fast, it will experience relativistic effects on its perceived length along the line of motion, its rate of the passage of time, its apparent mass, and its momentum, according to the observer with respect to whom it is moving. I think there is something else that changes too, but it eludes me at the moment. You apparently know this. What it looks like you're missing is this: that law, just like gravity, just like the electromagnetic and strong and weak forces, just like atomic physics (which makes the emission lines and absorption lines in spectra of distant stars and galaxies), just like all the other familiar physical laws, applies just as much to a galaxy receding at Z=4 or 0.923c as it does right here on Earth. It doesn't matter why the motion occurs; it could be the galaxy just receding or approaching in a local context (M31 in Andromeda is approaching the Milky Way and they are projected to collide in, IIRC, several million or maybe ten million years from now) or a global context (the example galaxy at Z=4). It doesn't matter if aliens have put little rockets on all the stars in one of those galaxies. It doesn't matter if the universe expanding is moving those galaxies. We will see redshift or blueshift (except if they are not moving relative to us) from them all.

Like I said, they just assume "everybody knows that." And it's as bad, in that way, in the popular literature as among the professionals; of course, among professional physicists it's extremely unlikely that any of them wouldn't know. I don't want you to feel bad about that; it's not your fault, and it's easily rectified, as I hope I have done right here right now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The transforms (officially "transformations of relative coordinate systems" and more colloquially "frame transforms" or "coordinate transforms," or very informally "transforms" as I use it) are the rates of exchange in your currency analogy. 10GHz in your frame is 1GHz in my friend Alice's frame, and 20GHz in my frame. We can convert the light (microwaves in this case) between the frames using the Lorentz transforms. We can approach this in multiple different ways; we can do the momentum transform, or we can do the length transform, or we can do the time transform. Then we can work out the frequency and the wavelength from that. But we can't say that you emitted a 10GHz signal in your frame, and then when we talk about what happened from my frame use that 10GHz. In my frame, it's 20GHz. If we bring that 10GHz into my frame without transforming it, all our pre-calculated answers will turn out to be wrong when we actually start measuring stuff.

I don't quite get your differentiation of the nature of time and the rate of timing. You also are forgetting that relativity is actually two theories: SRT and GRT. SRT was discovered first and only applies exactly in the limit of weak gravity; GRT expands on SRT and also applies (just confirmed by gravity wave detection-- see the other thread on that over in the Physics forum) in the strong gravity limit as well, to the extent we've been able to confirm it astronomically. (We can't confirm it very well locally because if we could we probably wouldn't exist; the Earth would be a black hole.) Relativity, as you said, says two things can affect time: gravity and motion. SRT provides the transforms to and from frames in relative motion; GRT handles frames under gravity (and I should add for completeness' sake, acceleration). But the nature of time (as you mean it, in context here) and the rate of timing are simply two different ways of talking about the same thing. Both are equally affect by both relativity theories, the special and the general. Can you explain just what you mean by differentiating them? How do you see them as different? That will help me explain just exactly what's puzzling you.

Apparently I will have to continue this in the next post.

[contd]

 

[contd]

Well, it has the light frame, but that frame is intractable to calculation in several different ways, so more or less, you are right. But remember that the frequency of the photon changes according to the frame you absorb it in, without any necessary change to the photon. That's what the transforms from one frame to another mean; in this frame, it is 10GHz, in that one, 20GHz, and so forth. Energy is not conserved in transforms from one frame to another. That's a basic fact of relativity, and for that matter in classical physics as well; if you transform from the frame of the ballplayer standing on the field to the frame of the helicopter passing by overhead, you and the ballplayer will see the ball traveling at different velocities relative to one another; there is no violation of energy conservation here, nor of momentum conservation either. At those very low speeds, you can even use the Galilean transform (for Newtonian physics) and be so close to right it's not worth the extra trouble to use the Lorentz transforms and relativity.

What confuses the situation is our tendency to assign more validity to the ballplayer's frame, because he's standing on the Earth and not moving relative to it, than to the frame of the helicopter, which is moving relative to the Earth. Thus we say "it was an 87 mph pitch" and think that's "the truth." It's not. The biggest lesson of relativity is, this assignment of differing validities is wrong. The universe doesn't really act like that. All inertial (that is, unaccelerated and outside any significant gravity field) frames are on an equal footing. What SRT does is allow transforms to moving frames, and what GRT does is allow transforms to frames in gravity (or under acceleration).

You need to be very careful dealing with Einstein's original thought experiments. They are generally true only in a limited range, and you need to know precisely what those limits are. Often they are at a limit, also known as a "limiting case" or "in the limit." Make sure you know the range within which the thought experiment actually works. There is a concept called the "equivalence principle" which talks about acceleration being the same as gravity. Einstein used it as a thought experiment while he was developing GRT. It turns out when you get into GRT, the equivalence principle is a limiting case; real gravity in a real gravity field is essentially different from acceleration because a true gravity field shows its spherical character, whereas simple acceleration doesn't have effects based on the spherical symmetry and inverse square action of a real gravity field.

The problem is, and I'll say it again, he didn't include the transforms. That's why it's wrong. You can't drag things from one frame to another without transforming them, and you can't do physics without choosing a frame in which you will measure all things. Billy T is choosing the frame of the distant galaxy for the emission frequency, and the Earth frame for the absorption frequency, and saying "look it changed" when he didn't do the transform. Nothing changed. In the frame of that distant galaxy it's still not redshifted, and in the frame of Earth it always was redshifted. And it doesn't matter what thought experiment or anything else he presents, those are the facts.

As always, sure, man.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yet we have those tiny small variations temperature fluctuations to thank for the MW and local group and general galactic formation.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

 

Schneibster:


To save this site's bandwidth costs, I will identify and address what I think are the most salient aspects in our latest exchange. I trust that's alright with you and that you won't take offense or think I am not reading your posts assiduously.


PROPER MOTION aspect: I am following my understanding of theory that has it that PONDEROUS bodies (as distinct from photon perturbations of an electromagnetic field) have peculiar velocities resulting from impetus and causes not related directly to cosmological expansion of space-time itself. For example, a Big Bang 'beginning' postulates only energy quanta and no ponderous bodies; and that inflation and expansion of space-time itself was the only cause and impetus without any effective proper motional aspect involved until energy quanta reconfigures to ponderous matter, then moving with peculiar velocities LESS than light speed limit applying at each epoch of inflation and expansion process. That peculiar proper motion of later ponderous 'matter' being caused by electromagnetic repulsion and attraction interactions, and, later by gravitational interactions between separate aggregations of energy and matter in various regions which became isolated due to expansion of space-time. Is that sufficiently clear distinction to convey what I meant regarding proper motion?


TIME and TIMING RATE aspect: I understand your explanation of transforms etc, but that is what I am trying to distinguish from the base concept of TIME as a convenience of agreed extrinsic 'standard value' for transacting between forms of real material values (as in Billy T's cars and candles etc examples); and the variations to that agreed standards necessarily affecting intrinsic values of any form of transactional entity for which the RATE is agreed to change accordingly when conditions change (as described for motion and gravitation). The two things are not in the same conceptual category: Time is conceptually agreed as any form of agreed convenience standard for any transactions; but Timing "rate" are reflective of different contextual conditions which may vary the values irrespective of standards previously agreed. Hence time is not changed in conceptual terms; but is changed in effective terms when different conditions affecting some transaction is different from the initial agreed standard rate. That's as well as I can convey the distinction there.

NO PHOTON FRAME aspect. That is my understanding from theory as already explained. As for your concern about changing frames and or having regard to frames at reception and emission processes, that is what I have tried to explain is not happening or active consideration for INTRINSIC photon properties (wavelength) when photon is in free space or when it is being emitted or absorbed. I explained my understanding of that aspect in earlier posts; making distinction between proper motional frame relativity effect between receiver and photon causing a "Perceived frequency" because the rate of rapidity during reception process is dependent on receiver's peculiar motion relative to light speed of photon wavelength peaks and troughs being absorbed. No other frame or consideration affects the wavelength at absorption or emission. And only some postulated action during intervening spacetime transit can affect the intrinsic wavelength (ie, scattering attenuations, gravitational well attenuations and, since Big Bang theory, expanding space attenuations for which no mechanism has yet been identified and explained, as earlier mentioned).


I stress now that I am after conceptual consistency of understanding of these aspects. The theoretical equations and explanations are satisfactory for calculation and transform purposes where measurables are treated, but the conceptual explanations must be consistent until the actual mechanisms can be identified and explained so that the terms used in equations have a logical place in understanding as well as a relative numerical term in equations. I am assuming that this conceptual understanding need to identify and explain a "mechanism" is what motivated The God and OP question and discussion in the first place.

That is all I can convey about the distinctions and understandings involved with those aspects mentioned. Thanks again, Schneibster, it is great to talk to a learned member here! I am only sorry I may have selfishly monopolized more of your time than I could expect as a recent member myself. Thank you for that.

 

They're well above the margin of error after WMAP and Planck. As far as whether expansion is isotropic or not, we've got a whole load of major galaxy surveys; among them the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which cataloged nearly a million galaxies and their redshifts. You can take a look at how many such surveys there have been here: http://www.astro.ljmu.ac.uk/~ikb/research/galaxy-redshift-surveys.html It has links to most of them. After those two data sets, there isn't a lot of question about major anisotropies in either the CMB (from Planck and WMAP) or about galaxy redshifts (all those galaxy surveys). In fact there hasn't been for nearly fifteen years. You must be reading some pretty old books. We have computers taking the galaxy surveys and measuring the redshifts; it's automatic, that's how good we are at it. The data are far beyond any margin of error.

I'll let you judge for yourself. Here's the map Planck made in 2010: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Planck_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe The anisotropies are obvious from that. The "cold spot" is about 70 uK (microdegrees K) cooler than the surrounding background, and the various hot spots are about the same warmer. Planck is extremely sensitive, and it has imaged the entire sky. That's very, very close to isotropic; within about 0.00259% in fact, dividing that 70 uK by the 2.7 K average temperature of the main background. My off-the-cuff guesstimate of a few percent is high by three orders of magnitude. That is very, very isotropic.

I think in this case you're confusing the isotropy (and very, very slight anisotropy) of the CMB with the isotropy of the redshifts. There is a marked anisotropy of redshifts between the Northern and Southern skies, mostly due to the relatively nearby presence of a gigantic galaxy cluster called the Virgo Supercluster. This data set is from 1979. I don't know whether any later surveys have been analyzed on a larger scale. So that's the first thing throwing you off. With all those filaments, galaxies tend to be clustered in the sky, and the clusters are at different distances, and even very rough isotropy is not reasonable to expect.

The distribution of recession rates of galaxies have, as a result of the filamentary evolution of the universe, little to do with the CMB. There's little to no connection between them any more. And there isn't any global reference. SRT precludes it, and the inherent anisotropies of the CMB prevent the possibility of using that as a frame; the use of redshifts to formulate a "redshift frame" is inherently unsound due to the filamentary structure. It would tell us almost nothing.

And none of this has anything to do with how redshift happens in the first place. I don't understand how you're connecting these two things, and I think you've made a mistake in confusing the CMB with the redshifts.

And as I said earlier, and again in this post, even though very small, the anisotropies of the CMB are sufficient to make it impossible to declare a universe wide CMB frame. And you're still confusing the CMB with the galactic redshifts; they are almost completely unrelated to one another.

Won't work, unfortunately, for the reasons given above.

Sure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, one more then I gotta get to sleep.

Pretty much, except the original plasma was also comprised of fermionic matter as well as energy quanta. At that point in the Big Bang, the universe was energy dominated, but not pure energy. You should say "massive" bodies rather than "ponderous;" that's more usual English (and physics) usage. And you can leave out the electromagnetic interactions; there was no net there either. Almost all of the motion after the Big Bang was due entirely to gravity, and to the expansion of the universe. Also, inflation was before there was much of any matter or energy in the universe; in fact, the vacuum decay of the inflaton (the force that drove inflation) causing the energy of the inflaton to be dumped into the universe was the original cause of the Big Bang. By the time the Big Bang happened the universe was enormous, at least billions of light years across and probably much larger than that. And the Big Bang didn't happen at a single point inside it; it happened everywhere in the universe all at once. So as you can see there's no way for things to come flying "out," because there isn't any "out." Overall, your point is correct. Most of the motion of most of the galaxies we can see is due to expansion of the universe, not to any impetus anything had from the Big Bang or before it. When it comes to galaxies beyond several hundred million light years from us, it's safe to say that very nearly all of their motion is due to expansion.

This is a very, very important point: time is relative. It's relative to your frame. The transforms transform time from one frame to another. There isn't any "base concept of time" any more than there is any preferred frame of reference, and that is precisely because there is no preferred frame of reference.

There is no distinction; there is no absolute time. Time is frame-dependent, and there is no preferred frame. Tell me if you need me to make this any clearer. You've definitely misunderstood something here. This is a very important area that you need to have a very clear understanding of not just for this conversation, but to understand SRT, GRT, and cosmology. Now is the time to get this.

Photons do have intrinsic properties, but wavelength/frequency/energy is not one of them. As with time, the perceived wavelength etc. is frame-dependent. If you merely concentrate on wavelength, you will find (if you run the numbers with the Lorentz transforms) that the SRT FitzGerald contraction (which is one of the Lorentz transforms) accounts for this exactly. Intrinsic properties of photons are that they are massless, that they have spin +1 or -1, and that's about it. Their momentum and wavelength/frequency/energy are extrinsic properties which are dependent upon the frame they are observed in; different frames might move differently from one another, or be in a gravity field, or be under acceleration. All of these things change the momentum and the wavelength etc. of the photon.

This is where you're wrong. You need to read my post about your frame, Alice's frame, and my frame, and the various frequencies we see the exact same light rays having. It isn't the expansion of space that's expanding the photons; nothing happens to the photons between emission and absorption. It is solely and only the difference in motion (gravity doesn't come into it dealing with light from distant galaxies) that determines what frequency the emitter and absorber see. Nothing else. Period.

I hope I have given you that. But if you are still questioning it after the above posts, and this one, then I need you to go back and read again and identify just where it is you think the explanations I'm giving you are wrong, then ask about it.

But you're going to have to give up these ideas that photons have some particular "intrinsic" energy/light has some particular "intrinsic" wavelength/frequency, and that there is absolute time, first. These ideas are incorrect and will only hamper your understanding.

Just having fun, over here. I like explaining things to people.

Good night. Dream well, if you dream.

 

Let me say after your last few replies, and the time and efforts you have put in to answer all questions, you deserve a medal. No, I'm not pissing in your pocket, [although I'm certain a couple of my friends will say I am] I'm telling it as it is and I'm pretty sure most others interested in this agree with me.
The main issue that I personally have extracted from your excellent replies and answers, is how important the equality of all frames of references are, even in relation to redshift:
And of course the gist of the whole thread that cosmological redshift does happen and as a consequence spacetime expansion and GR.
I'm sure all are appreciative of your efforts in just a little over two days and the sound knowledge you have passed on.
I must though question your honesty

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In you introduction you claimed you were just a computer hacker/IT professional; are you holding something back from us?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All jokes aside, well done!

 

For anyone not to understand that most basic postulate of SR, or not accept it, with all the evidence we have, then someone indeed has a problem.

 

That of course was originally raised by Russ in an attempt to answer the god, and elaborated on and further explained by Scheibs.
That alone made my time well worth while.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The "CMBR dipole" has been found. Here it is:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The "cold spot" can be interpreted as a Doppler shift rather than a temperature, which for whatever reason, seems to be the more popular way to interpret the available data. It is not necessary to find the corresponding "warm spot". Everywhere else is the warm spot. Not much of an anisotropy, I admit, but whatever it is, it's discernibly there.

 

Perhaps it should be. Dozens of reliable resources have reported the speed of entanglement to be > 10,000 x c. This means, at a minimum, time's graininess compared edge to edge next to a photon or light wave is over 10,000 times faster. Cut up those wavelengths of time varying electric and magnetic linearly polarized transverse waveforms in the direction of Maxwell's Poynting vector into 10,000 SLICES. That's how much faster than light, at a minimum, time itself must be. I happen to think the actual speed of entanglement is more likely to be c^2, but the available data and science does not yet specify. This relates to the light waves observed in the cosmological red shift in the OP as much as any other form of EM. If it did not, a red shift (or a blue shift) would not even be possible. It isn't that anything actually is propagating faster than c (because anything composed of energy can't); only that the linear propagation of energy is not the basis of time itself. Those Doppler shifts are what inform us that a grainier basis for time itself exists.

Before such speeds were measured, the Planck length/time was given as a possible theoretical lower bound on intervals of time / cutoff frequency of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum. No part of relativity deals directly with speeds > c either. Looks like science needs some minor extension in the right direction of the previous scaffolding. The choice is to try to do that, or else to ignore the 2000 pound gorilla in the small cage with us and just pretend it isn't really bothering us. I once believed that ignorance was the diametrical opposite of the disposition of scientific knowledge as well as methodology, but I see now that I may have considerably misjudged that. It is possible to ignore almost anything, even quite important science for which the evidence is overwhelming and which is already screaming to be resolved. As if Ptolemy / Copernicus, Pope Urban / Galileo never happened. Science is still under a self=imposed house arrest, or so it would appear. Why, exactly, is that?

 

Actually, that's not it. If it were there'd be a corresponding "hot spot" in the other side of the sky. Sorry to disappoint, but they detected the dipole a long time ago.

 

If there were only one group of coherent traveling photons in the known universe and only one observer (you), and it was further stipulated that everywhere else, light could scatter (it doesn't, but bear with this thought experiment for just a moment). THEN what you would see is a blue shifted or a hotter ray on approach, a red shifted or a colder one when it receded, and nothing at all in the direction from which it left after it had passed. The same thought experiment works for non-coherent photons propagating in all directions and therefore obeying the inverse square law.

In other words, only ONE SPOT is seen. The one from the past cannot be seen, and even if it could, looking for it in the same region of the spectrum (CMBR) or even the same region of the sky would be pointless, wouldn't it? It was blue shifted, and photons DO NOT GET TIRED THE WAY THAT BILLYT AND OTHER young earth creationists HAVE SUGGESTED. These people seem to have a vested interest in sticking their G-d in ONE PLACE, or if they can't accomplish that, AT ONE TIME. The time / place du jour is the origin of the BB or inflation, 13.6 billion years ago relative to our current rate of time dilation.

WMAP and Planck did half the job. Someone should figure out what the shifted frequency is and finish the job. We know the direction. Some of it doubtless still scatters from space dust. The James Webb telescope mission should tell us, if a real scientist is allowed to use it, that is. Fat chance of that happening, because the ranks of NASA are filled with YECs. They are trying for all they are worth to do the same to the Supreme Court right now.

 

How much do you want to bet, I'm in a lot of trouble now for pointing that out?

If you are an evangelist, the BB was G-d's miracle of creation and conservation of energy is not required. If you are a real scientist, the BB was actually a collision event in an infinite eternity, and the conservation of energy reigns more supreme than G-d Him -Her - Itself.

The YECs already know what version of creation they will find at the end of their "science" quests. Real scientists don't have a clue. YECs even use mathematics to bolster their wild claims because, like Holy Scripture, the symbology of mathematics is assuredly and doggedly incomplete (or else inconsistent). To go against whatever it says is at worst blasphemy, and at best only mildly puzzling. Either case is something they can deal with, just like with Galileo.

 

As stated earlier Schneibster, thumping assertion that cosmological redshift is doppler redshift only, is not shared by mainstream......he is equating both, which is possibly held by few mainstream guys only, not by all...rather the same is being ridiculed...details available in the link below...