HYPOTHESIS: 'Recession' & 'Redshift' & Dark Matter Variations Over Time

Why bring your babbling into it (my bolding)?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How would you know? Have you anything other than the redshift relation to measure the actual mass of the further galaxies at the time the light was emitted which is reaching us now billions of years later after more than ONE possible process for mass loss over those billions of years?

And your 'personal baggage' pettiness and opinions have no scientific weight whatsoever. Especially when you appear to babble so well yourself. Leave it out in future please. People in glass houses and all that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi MarkM125, thanks for your polite response.


I read what you say, but as far as I can naively understand what you say, it is all an opinion based on certain conventional assumption/hypothesis that the universe IS expanding, so the equation 1 + z = a/a₀ is consistent with those assumption/hypothesis, but in no way does it actually measure the actual mass of the further galaxies at the time the light was emitted from those galaxies which we are receiving here now many billions of years later after more than one process leading to great mass loss over those billions of years.

Note again that there is a suggestion now that there are more than one possible processes (involving both Dark Matter loss, normal matter loss, and possibly other yet unknown/undetected processes).

That was the point that should be borne in mind. And not just one thing fits all process. The full understanding of what actual mass/conditions applied to the galaxies when they emitted the light being received here now so far in space and time is obviously being shown to be incomplete, even just based on the one article mentioned in my earlier post. That is,

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-powerful-jets-material-galaxy-limits.html

I understand that RealityCheck had earlier science literature/news articles he intended to post in support of his OP at the time, but got turned off by the mindless trolls and antagonistic personal bias and insults which obviously succeeded in shutting down proper fair discourse. That was the troll agenda, and it worked with the help of the dubious mod calibre at the time which preferred to allow the trolls and ban the OP and so effectively closed down reasonable discussion.

Thanks anyway for your responses, MarkM125, they have been very helpful in providing further context and contrast which helps any scientific conversation along greatly! Kudos.

Bye for now (have to go and vote for the elections being held here in Oz today!).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not babbling that is simply stating the obvious. The amount of mass that would have to be added to a galaxy to give values of Z = 6 or 7 is absurdly high!

You're saying that maybe there were some sort of processes that caused mass loss in galaxies. You will need to do better than that. See that is the problem there is a lot of evidence for the expansion of the universe and to change that you need a GOOD theory not just a conjecture.

I have no personal baggage and was not trying to be petty. I just didn't want you to get misled by RealityCheck's idiocy. Nobody on this site considered him anything but a clown. He was banned because he was completely ignorant of science and completely unable to learn or be rational. He may actually have had some sort of mental disorder for all I know. I actually ended up feeling sorry for the guy, I mean what an embarrassment to himself.

I don't think I was babbling about this, I simply stated that it is inconceivible that galaxies had so much mass in the past that the red shift is a result of gravitational red shifting. How would gravitational red shift fit into the acceleration of the expansion that has happened in the (relatively) recent history of the universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The classic example of the Doppler shift, is the changing pitch of a train whistle as the train passes. In this case, the motion of the train changes the wavelength. The frequency follows, so we hear the change in pitch.

The train whistle could also change pitch (audio red shift) by altering the frequency, with the train remaining stationary. We can do the scales on a piano going from higher to lower frequency with the piano stationary.

The question becomes, is there a source of frequency modulation where the frequency could be change and the wavelength follows so we see a red shift ? One example, is time slows down in satellites that orbits the earth. As galaxies mature, they spin faster, with the outer edge like satellites slowing the frequency output.

 

Undefined, I feel that I must warn you again about RealityCheck, since you are relatively new here. Not only was he a dolt when it came to science, but he was also dishonest. He always had some article that supposedly would supported his ideas and as soon as he found it he would include it in the thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, of course he wouldn't "find" the article because it didn't exist. He would just say these things to lend support to his outlandish musings.

Just thought you should know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you really think any of the conjectures in this thread are worth investigating you should look at them - but don't be surprised when they do not pan out - consider the source!

 

Origin, Undefined is RealityCheck.

 

Another source of red shift is connected to entropy increasing. If we expand a gas, the gas and container get colder. The infrared signal, by getting colder, is implicit of the wavelength increasing; red shift. For entropy to increase, it needs to absorb energy, which in this case looks like a red shift at the level of IR heading in the direction of radio and microwaves.

As an experiment, we will use a round gas storage container that we will place at a distance. To see how people react, we will focus a telescope at the container and tell people it is a space anomaly. We will first look at the container in the IR. Next, we will open the valve and let the gas lower pressure and physically expand. This is not space-time expansion, but mass expansion. We will notice a red shift as the container grows colder due to the entropy increase. It looks like it is moving, if we assume all red shift equals motion. It is sort of moving, at the atomic level of the gas, but since the gas is part of the whole it appears like the entire container is moving.

 

Hi Origin, thanks for your responses.

How do you know what is 'absurd' if you have presented no measure of the actual mass of a galaxy and its surrounds billions of years ago, as distinct from assumptive estimates based on possibly flawed methodology/interpretations etc, especially if you have no idea of all the possible processes and mechanisms which contribute to all the components of the 'total redshift values' for the light from those much more massive galaxies we only measure NOW HERE, billions of years later, with no real reference to any 'standard' for that time billions of years earlier in galaxy evolution/mass loss and other processes affecting redshift values?

It is also a problem when PROPER MOTION through space is NOT KNOWN, but assumed from those same redshift values measured here and now without actual direct knowledge of the motion of those galaxies.

Consider: We currently ASSUME that the component of redshift due to motion will affect the total redshift measured above and beyond the mass-related component. So any FAR galaxies 'measured' to be 'receding' more/less fast than others will automatically be interpreted as to DISTANCE from us. Which brings in BIAS and ASSUMPTION which a-priori and ad-hocly more redshift as just being 'further away' instead of the other possibility that the distances are NOT accurately interpreted, but actually may be a 'mixture' of assumptions without any actual knowledge of either the distance, proper velocities or masses of the galaxies at that time being whose light is only detected now here far away in time and space.

This leaves open the possibility that MANY 'unknowns' are at play in the redshift detected, and our simplistic interpretationjs from simplistic theory/assumptions may not actually reflect the reality; and hence leaves the question open whether many processes are at play which give the 'impression' that 'universal expansion/recession' is occurring, but that 'impression' may not hold water when ALL the currently and obviously 'unknown' components/contributions/processes THEN and NOW are finally taken PROPERLY into account.

That is the point. We should not be so adamant and think that all the evidence is in about the still HYPOTHETICAL 'universal expansion/recession interpretations/assumptions.

Again, all the 'evidence' to date is predicated/dependent on the assumptions and interpretations which make self-fulfilling prophesy type of 'observations/interpretations' as that 'evidence'. Obviously, there must be more components/processes contributing to what NET redshift we observe now here from so far away in the universal evolutionary process. So contrary to your suggestion/belief, there exists NO actually FINAL 'definitive complete evidence' beyond question on this question.

Seems like you are claiming to know all the science, and are in a position to judge?

Patently you are not in that position. You don't even want to allow full fair and open discourse before you condemn the source/person and poison any chance at proper development of argument/discussion to conclusion. It is only after that conclusion that any sane and reasonable person would leave their judgement as to who was scientific and who was the troll. Yes?

Anyone so adamant and insulting and so ready to have a member banned for presenting ideas for discussion is a troll, pure and simple. And certainly in NO position to claim any legitimacy in science or humanity when OPINING about others and their original ideas which seem to enrage trolls who seem to hate anyone who questions orthodoxy with new ideas which should be discussed on their merits not their source. Yes?

Your opinion about what you were or were not doing is neither here nor there. Your statement and the implicit claim to actual scientific knowledge/authority speaks for itself. I merely challenged that statement and implied claim. Yes?

Anyhow, it should by now be obvious to any sane and reasonable observer/member that, by the science literature/news (both in the most recent example already linked to; and the much earlier ones which RealityCheck ALREADY HAD READY to link to at the time as the conversation proceeded had it been allowed to and not trolled to death and banned), it shows that there may be more than one process existed then which could CUMULATIVELY and TOGETHER affect the mass of galaxies over billions of years, and also result in the redshifting detected here and now. The fact that RealityCheck was banned before being allowed to proceed at his own pace on his own reasonable scientifically valid OP discussion/thread is NOT a valid excuse for your opinions, since you and others colluded and contrived to spoil and frame him and his threads/discussions so that he would be banned by the mod-half of the mod-troll gang operating across the Internet forums at the time. So using your victimization and bans as a 'reason' for your opinions about the victim and the trumped up banning 'excuse', is a little too much to swallow, even for the most gullible observer here and across the net. The responsible trolls can't keep framing and blaming the victim forever and expect to get away with it, Origin. So I suggest you drop your obvious personal prejudice and instead go back and read all the true facts and not the troll fictions, and never again allowing your ego and personal malice/subjectivity get in the way of future discourse on the science and on the merits and not on the source or the personal baggage, hey?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since you bring up your personal opinion on RealityCheck and your personal opinion as to what YOU offer as 'reasons' for his banning:

Forgive my frankness, Origin, but as you were one of the Internet trolls who was part of the troll-mod gang active at the time (as proven at the time via Internet Experiments carried out by Mars Rover here, and Investigator at another site), it seems the height of trollish optimism to delude yourself that anyone with even a passing connection with the actual facts of the matter would take your word for anything on this matter, yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you will recall, the Internet Experiments (alluded to above) comprehensively and beyond shadow of doubt PROVED that RealityCheck the person was already MARKED for framing and banning via collusion by the aforementioned troll-mod gang running riot across the internet forums at the time.

Naturally it is too much for the same trolls to admit that RealityCheck wanted to DISCUSS valid ideas and DEVELOP DISCUSSION properly IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. Which he wasn't given, because the trolls framed and poisoned all further chances of proper discussion by their shrill and insulting and unheeding DEMANDS FOR A FULL BLOWN THEORY.

This demand, and all the insults (all of which were obviously colluded and contrived to poison the discussion/atmosphere with a view to 'preparing the way' for the thread to be shut down and locked by the crooked mods working with the trolls, using those same trolls and framings as trumped up 'excuse') put off and scared off any potential sane and reasonable folk from participating in such an obviously dangerous situation where any attempt to politely interact with or constructively contribute to the OP author/thread would leave them also open to framing and banning by the same troll-mod gang! Hence why the site was going downhill at the time, thanks to the awful antics and sabotage by the troll-mod gang active then. Only members of that same troll-mod gang would deny it.

So any 'opinions' from the trolls involved about their VICTIMS and/or their trumped up 'reasons' proffered for the victims' bannings, would to any sane and reasonable OBJECTIVE observer be expected to carry LESS than ZERO weight in objectivity or credibility terms. Yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow, as ever, I would prefer to forgive and forget, so I trust you would want likewise and not again bring up 'opinionated troll baggage' about sane and reasonable members who were banned by the bad old 'troll-mod gang' of the day, hey Origin, everyone?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rushed. Please forgive any typos etc. Thanks.

 

Double posted due to rushing. Now removed. Thanks.

 

Well it you your idea, so the question is one you should answer; what is the amount of additional mass and how it would have to be distributed in a galaxy such as Andromeda to have a redshift of say Z=6, you can decide if it is 'absurd' or not.

You may not understand what the redshift is telling us. No proper motion is assumed from the redshift. The redshift is from expansion not proper motion.

The expansion of the universe is not a hypothesis it is a theory. This may seem like a minor point to someone that does not have a science background but it is very big distinction. I recommend that you google hypothesis and theory.
Looking at the proper motion of the galaxies close to us it is clear that any proper motion will be overwhelmed by the expansion of the universe. In every direction that you look the redshift of the galaxies is larger in proportion to their distance as measured by other means such as cepheid variables, indicating that proper motion is not a big contributer.

Now you are just being silly. The theory is in no way any sort of self-fulfilling prophesy. I suggest you google 'evidence for expansion of the universe', you must not understand the theory to write such a thing. Of course there is no "FINAL 'definitive complete evidence' beyond question", in science you never have a final truth, you should google 'scientific method, to better understand how science works.

No. Sorry if it seemed that way, I am only trying to present the scientific theory on expansion. It certainly seems your idea would include an absurdly large amount of mass in early galaxies. Do the calculations and prove me wrong - you will find that I do not argue against evidence. Evidence speaks for itself.

Well I don't even know the exact reason that RealityCheck was banned but the fact remains that the moderators of this science forum clearly thought that he not add anything and he was actually a negative drag on this site. Since you refered to his ideas in this thread I just wanted to let you know that he was abusive, a pseudo science crank and dishonest. It looks like you looked at his history and you can draw your own conclusions. So I think we can forget that RealityCheck ever existed and move on.

 

Hi Origin. Thanks for your polite response.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry I took so long coming back to you, Been very busy and have had to rush my typing/posting lately, as you may have gathered already.

That is precisely the sort of thinking/discussion the OP and my recent linked reference should elicit from the mainstreamers who haven't had such 'great mass loss' possibilities factored into their assumptions/hypotheses and interpretations of the redshift data based on same. So it's mainstreamers commenting on the mainstream 'new observations' that is called for.

The original OP author back then, and also myself now with my recent link observations from mainstream astronomers/cosmologists, was merely hypothesizing based on new/previously unaddressed/connected mainstream info which seems to suggest that there may be MANY more than one process by which early/farther galaxies coould loss many times the mass which we may infer from local galaxies is 'the norm'?.

As to the level of significance of possible quantities/losses involved, consider:

We have Ordinary Matter 5%, of which the recent linked article says early galaxies lose much of over billions of years of ejecta material of polar jets into intergalactic space.

We have Dark Matter 27%, of which recent astronomical surveys have indicated that early galaxies have lost much of their initial Dark Matter mass also to intergalactic space where it produces the 'lensing effects' which mainstream cannot explain in any other way.

Then we have Dark Energy 68%, which we know almost nothing about its behavior early on when furthest galaxies and space processes were more energetic and possibly experiencing a now defunct 'coupling effect' that may also have affected their 'effective mass behaviour' insofar as the light emission/exit from them was concerned.

And then of course, is all the things and processes happening in the long intervening distances of deep space and its possible effects on light transit/redshift behavior/properties. In this area too mainstream is finding more and more indications that 'space' is 'something in itself', and not just what it 'contains'.

The point of both the original OP and the recent added linking was to stimulate further discussion during which everyone interested could canvass/explore/review all the old/new data and observations with a view to getting a more realistic 'interpretation' of what 'redhift' IS measured here/now much later in our local conditions which may not be anything like it was when all galaxies started out. That is why it was unreasonable in my opinion for trolls and shrill spoilers to 'demand it all cut and dried' up front. The discussion would reveal the extent of what's what. That was the intention and point of having a discussion on an open forum, not in a peer reviewed journal claiming something definitive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All redshift detected here from farthest galaxies must be a combination 'net' value containing all the possible factors which go to making that detected value. Just because you or I assume a-priori that only 'expansion recession' is reflected in the measured redshift is circuitous reasoning. Naturally if you assume and infer everything based on an 'expansion only' scenario, naturally you get what you set up the 'analysis' for based on said assumptions in the first instance.

I don't think mainstream science is as sure and certain on all this as you make out. Measuring distances much more than tens/hundred million lightyears is not easy as you seem to think....unless you make assumptions about what the 'further galaxies' redshift data 'contains' by way of actual information that is not biased by the original observational and interpretational analysis/construct. Which is what is currently happening; and which old/newer observations about significant mass loss (Dark and Ordinary) and unknown effects of Dark Energy way back when and in the intervening deep space paths/processes etc. That is the whole point about reviewing all the possible unknown/overlooked processes which may affect what we detect here/nopw from the farthest reaches/galaxies and across billions lighyear deep space light transit in all sorts of intervening conditions.

Again, if you read carefully the literature and wiki, you will find that even the mainstream science admit that everything may not be as cut and dried as some here would have us believe, especially as more and more recent observations like that I recently linked to come in and slowly digested and incorporated into the literature/wiki entries. So who is being silly?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, when you say "it seems", it does not get us anywhere as far as the serious consideration of all the possibilities mentioned is concerned, does it. That and other aspects and 'calculations', based on new/previously overlooked HINTS and OBSERVATIONS, is what SHOULD have all mainstream cosmologists champing at the bit to do all the 'figuring' necessary to give more quantifiable implications for mass loss, space processes and other increasingly discovered possibilities affecting the redshift values we detect here/now and from which and on which we base all our Universal expansion scenario assumptions, hypotheses, inferences and interpretations etc.

The original OP and my recent contribution of that linked article/news merely wants to stimulate discussion, not make claims at this early stage before a full discussion has been completed and everyone has had their say/evidence heard.

That's it, really; that's all I wanted to do, contribute/present information/ideas for further discussion. No harm in that, yes? No excuse for the old mod-troll tactics and framing for banning, yes?

Right there (my bolding) is how urban legends created by the old troll-mod gang are perpetuated by innocent people gulled into believing all their carefully crafted framing and banning lies and innuendo about their victims.

Maybe you missed the INTERNET EXPERIMENTS that definitively proved that the old troll-mod gang who was running riot across the forums was the problem, not RealityCheck or many other victims of this malignant gang having no interest in either the merits or the fairness which should be part and parcel of any worthy science and humanity discourse site.

So, Origin, for your innocent ears, and in the interests of factual rather than twisted impression, it should be borne in mind that the mods who you allude to as the ones 'judging', were the VERY SAME mods who were part of the troll-mod gang who spoiled, poisoned, trolled and otherwise disrupted and aborted their chosen victims' perfectly valid and reasonable OP, thread/discussion and framed and banned them totally without due cause. It was the troll-mod gang actions who broke all the rules, not their victims, of which RealityCheck as only one. You can see now, I trust, Origin, that your innocent and charmingly naive depending on the stories told by the same troll-mod gang who acted as the crooked perpetrators and then acted as both crooked judge and crooked jury and willing executioner in the case, is fraught with peril to both your innocence and the facts of the matter regarding who and why did the dirty on RealityCheck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes?

Anyhow, Origin, everyone, I say again that I wish to forgive and forget with no hard feelings, as long as the malicious lies from the old troll-mod days are laid to rest and not again used as mistaken excuse to troll the victim again. Let's all start afresh, especially as nowadays the same behavior which the old troll-mod gang indulged in would see them banned tout suite! Which just goes to show even an internet site can improve with age and experience, given the right membership and commitment to fairness and courtesy to all comers. Yes? )

Running late. Please forgive the typos from rushed typing. Bye for now. See you when next I have time. Thanks again and good luck to you Origin, everyone!

 

Undefined, you have said essentially the same thing in the last 3 post. The theory of big bang and the expansion of space has been a very effective and convincing theory, your conjectures about gravitational redshift are not convincing at all. I have given you a challenge to demonstrate with some mathematics what sort of mass we are talking about and you have chosen not to adress the challenge. The onus is on you to give a compelling argument why your idea should be considered. So far all you have are multiple conjectures and assumptions. For anyone with a science background to consider your ideas you would need more than simply repeating the same stuff over and over. Lets see a bit more meat.

By the way, I think everyone is pretty clear that you are a sockpuppet of RealityCheck. You are not fooling anyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Origin, Thanks for your continuing polite responses. Much appreciated, I assure you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who is trying to 'fool' anyone. The admin saw I was not the 'problem' then or now (Proven by INTERNET EXPERIMENTS demonstrating the troll-mod gang Modus Operandi at the time), and so they allowed me to post and warned the 'usual suspects' (ie the actual problem trolls) to not bring past baggage or troll me based on past (erroneous/unfair) banning as RealityCheck. The trolls keep trying to bait and troll the past while I am trying to avoid it, and then they (and now you) falsely accuse me of trying to somehow 'fool' anyone. The admin knows, and everyone should by now have known who I am, but I am still suffering from the usual 'troll strawman' that I am trying to 'fool' anyone. Talk about damned if you do, and damned if you don't, hey Origin?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now back to the topic. I make no claims, remember? I LINKED a mainstream article about large mass loss process from early galaxies over billions of years. This original OP thread/discussion seemed relevant place to post that link. What you or anyone else makes of the information conveyed in the mainstream article is up to you/them.

The discussion of NEW EVIDENCE is the thing, not just what one wants to repeat/assert from prior 'understandings' which may change due to increasingly more frequent new information which may, taken together, indicate need to REVIEW what current 'understandings' are and what 'assumptions' they are based on which may also change given the new information.


Did you miss that NOW such new information is a possible cause for challenge to mainstream theory, not to me or my hypotheses?

So I invite mainstreamers HERE to discuss all the incoming new information and 'defend' THEIR mainstream hypothesis which may not be a theory if it is still so vulnerable to new/overlooked information which may prove those earlier assumptions and current interpretations not so "effective and convincing" as you keep asserting even though the linked article and other information challenging same is 'on the table' for YOU to 'defend' YOUR current 'theory/hypotheses' against.

Remember, it's not I who discovered the information I linked to. I merely present it here for on-topic open and fair discussion by anyone interested in exploring its (and other new/overlooked information's) possible implications for current orthodoxy 'expansion' interpretations, and defending against the new implications if any, not against me or my pointing it out and linking to the matter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks again for your polite responses, Origin. Good to see the bad old days are 'almost' gone altogether. Kudos. Bye and good discussing, Origin, everyone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My mistake - I would not have refered to a current memeber in the way that I did, I thought I was refering to a past member. When you refered to RealityCheck, you did so in a manner that clearly led to the impression that he was not you.

Great. We are back on track then. The universe is expanding and there is some interesting if unrelated information about further understanding of jets of material ejected from galaxies.

How so? This seems to be just a bit more information about jets coming from galaxies that will help in further understanding galactic evolution.:shrug:

Which mainstream theory does this information challenge? What do you mean your hypotheisis? You just stated "Now back to the topic. I make no claims, remember?"

Again I am not sure which theory or hypothesis you feel needs to be defended with this further understanding of galactic jets.

OK so you are talking about the expansion of the universe. I see no implications at all from the article you cite relative to expansion of the universe. There is nothing to defend. What aspects of this article do you think has anything to do with expansion?

 

No sweat, no hard feelings, mate! It's those incorrigible trolls who bring the poison and hypocritically lie about and rake up other's erroneous/unfair bannings that make it necessary to tread carefully and not make it too obvious if 'forgive and forget' is to have any chance of being allowed as the order of the day from now on (as admin made clear to the troll(s) in question in a PM advising that I am staying since I do not break the rules like the trolls have done). Water under the bridge, hey, Origin?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The jets of early/far galaxies transfer huge amounts of energy-mass to intergalactic deep space. Over billions of years, it amounts to fantastic mass loss from galaxies until the galaxies we see close to us now billions of years later are 'shadows of their former selves', as it were. That is the point.

You asked before about providing an approximate idea of how much mass may be involved in the mass-loss process over the billions of years. Here is a link to an article which gives us an idea:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-astronomers-unravel-year-dark-mystery.html

Note this:

It gives you an idea what sort of orders of magnitude of Dark Matter energy-mass may be entrained by the gravitational attraction of the jets of ordinary energy-matter being blasted out to intergalactic deep space over the evolutionary period of billions of years. Yes? So not only huge amounts of ordinary energy-mass loss, but also even vaster amounts of Dark Matter energy-mass.

It is that very 'evolution' process that is important in understanding how far/early galaxies may have been redshifting light to virtually CMB-like wavelengths way back when. This would affect assumptions and interpretations of the CMB detected now, here. The implications are huge for the 'validity' of BigBang and Universal Expansion/Recession' hypothesis 'evidence' which may be soon re-interpreted as 'steady sate' evidence if this and other possible processes produce the detected CMB and other light-bourne 'evidence' currently assumed/interpretd as supporting BB and U-Expansion/Recession.

And not only galactic effects on light redshifting, but also the INTER-GALACTIC deep space contents and processes too; from the Dark Matter and Ordinary Matter scatterings, eg: Multiple 'lensings' along the way; and other currently unsuspected processes (which I shall be disclosing in my ToE when published), and; Quantum Tunneling and other exotic effects we have yet to realize can occur in deepest space environments, even involving Dark Matter (despite the assumed 'non-interaction' between that and photonic energy), all of which TOGETHER may affect the light characteristics/properties eventually detected here/now so far away in time and space distance.

Oh, and if you think Quantum Tunneling effects/processes cannot occur in deep space conditions involving energy-mass 'quanta', this will give you a hint as to what possible exotic processes may be going on as well as those I have mentioned:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-quantum-tunnelling-aid-life-chemistry.html

It involves Deep Space Cold Chemistry, but Chemistry is physics in a specific context anyway. And in this deep space context, the physics and the chemistry aspects appear to become virtually indistinguishable at the Quantum Scale tunneling mode (else these exotic processes could not happen as observed in the above article).

Actually, it challenges almost all 'theories' which depend on the interpretations we currently give to the detected light redshift and CMB itself. So Big Bang, Universal Expansion/Recession and all the Geometric Abstractions of Relativity insofar as they are affected if Big Bang and Expansion/Recession is the wrong interpretation to the so-called "irrefutable evidence" for them which may not be so irrefutable if new perspective from these new and previously overlooked discoveries change things as I suspect they have already (because I am independent scientist and have no personal or professional 'attachment' to any particular 'theory'. I always question, especially if things seem not to be so 'cut and dried' as some would have us think even though there is plenty of things to raise doubt in the mind of still-objective observers/interpreters of the data/phenomena.

I refer to all the above responses and leave you and others interested to think that question through for a while in light of our discussion so far.

Again I refer you to the above responses/info provided. Anyhow, it's not just one 'isolated' article, data point, process, etc etc, its the cumulative effect of all the above and more which I have not yet disclosed as it will appear in my ToE publication soon.

I trust that at least I have given you and others enough to think about and discuss further?

For the sake of your own further explorations and review of orthodoxy. I merely posit hypothesis and suggestions for DISCUSSION without making claims as such; but merely ask for others to contribute their own thoughts and ideas based on new and overlooked information (some of which I have posted above) which may put a quite different slant on the universal nature, content and dynamics.

Thanks again for your polite responses and interest, Origin. Please forgive any typos etc from my rushed typing. I may not have much time for posting over the next few days. Enjoy the discussion, whatever forum/topic you're involved in, Origin, everyone! Bye for now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What do you mean by huge amounts? Where is your evidence of this? You still have not have given and estimation of the amount of mass that would be needed for your conjecture.

You seem to imply that this article is saying something about mass loss but if clearly is not.

Yes I know this is your conjecture - you need something to support that conjecture.

This does nothing to support your conjecture that the red shift is not due to the expansion of the universe.

I guess you are convinced. You are essentially just hand waving and thowing out stuff to see if anything will 'stick'. Nothing is sticking so far.

Nothing you have brought up is very compelling. Universal expansion is still safe.

You have been threatening to publish your ToE "soon" for quite a while now. Since you do not seem able to even calculate the amount of mass that would be neccessary to cause a redshift in a galaxy, I assume your "ToE" will be little more than more arm waving. Do you honestly believe that a layman with a scant science education can actually publish a physics paper that is worth while. That belief is nothing short of delusional.

No, not even close.

Your lack of knowledge does not equate to science overlooking anything. The idea that you are seeing things that 'science' has overlooked (by reading popular science articles on the net) is more evidence of a delusuional person.

 

While it may be accurate to describe the potential loss of mass, through these jets as masive over the time periods mentioned, two things are not included in your conclusion(s).

There is no information that suggests how long these jets have existed beyond the light time of the observable dimensions of the jets.., and the existence of the jets says nothing of how much mass the galaxies are simultaneously accumulating from intergalactic space.

The available evidence seems potentially more closely associated with the stability and/or evolution and dynamics of the central black hole(s) and/or even galaxies generally, than the imaginative speculations you seem to favor.

Even if one assumes that all black holes or galaxies with central black holes produce similar jets and some loss of mass, that in and of itself would suggest that the mass ejected in those jets would or could also be captured by the gravitational fields of other galaxies or gravitational systems. There is no obvious reason to believe that there is any net significant loss of mass. It may just be one part in a larger cycle of the dynamics of mass and energy on a much larger scale.

 

Hi Origin.

Remember the earlier link by Undefined which re-started this thread discussion:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-powerful-jets-material-galaxy-limits.html

See where the article opened with the sentence: “Astronomers using a worldwide network of radio telescopes have found strong evidence that a powerful jet of material propelled to nearly light speed by a galaxy's central black hole is blowing massive amounts of gas out of the galaxy.”

I also linked to further info for your further consideration (see next quote box below).

Seems like you haven’t thought on the linked info enough before repeating your question and your assertion that I have not provided any idea of the mass quantities/types involved?

The linked article in the above quote box (of my previous post) opens with: ”Dwarf galaxies, in particular, make great laboratories to study dark matter, Jardel says, because they contain up to 1,000 times more dark matter than normal matter. Normal galaxies like the Milky Way, on the other hand, contain only 10 times more dark matter than normal matter.

Surely it’s not too much to ask for you to connect the dots: IE, that Dwarf galaxies (like the earliest galaxies) may contain at least 1000 times more Dark matter than Ordinary matter; and that Normal ‘local’ galaxies now (billions of years later) still contain only 10 times more Dark matter than ordinary matter. Hence the logical observation is that the earliest galaxies THEN have, over the billions of years SINCE, apparently lost 990 times the present quantities of DM (seen to be remaining in ‘local’ galaxies NOW) to DEEP intergalactic spaces.

And this enormous DM quantity loss is above and beyond the loss of Ordinary matter already stated by the first article I linked to earlier!

Try to connect the dots, and do the addition, before kneejerking and repeating apparently ‘preprepared stance’ denials and assertions despite all the new mainstream information provided to you so far.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I also already provided link to an article describing newly discovered possible Quantum processes and Quantum tunneling etc in DEEP space (see next quote box of my previous post). There is a LOT of space and process going on since billions of years and across billions of lightyears of space that is not so empty as previously thought. Plenty of DM and Ordinary matter and process going on that may affect the light we finally detect ‘here and now’.

You seem determined to be obtuse, Origin. If all the newly discovered processes in galaxy mass dynamics and deep space mass-energy dynamics doesn’t at least make you stop and review your ‘pre-prepared stance’ kneejerking repetitive assertions and opinions , then perhaps you may be the one not being scientifically objective., and just sticking with orthodoxy irrespective.

If those newly discovered mass loss processes for earlier greatly more massive galaxies which may redshift light ‘at source’ and ‘exiting source vicinity’; and if the newly discovered deep space processes which may redshift light ‘in transit across billions of lightyears of NOT-’empty’ and NOT-’passive’ space regions/processes, then it appears that nothing will ever budge you from your ‘pre-prepared stance’ that only your ‘universal expansion/recession’ and Big Bang hypothesis interpretation will be ‘acceptable’ and that’s that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all. It seems that you have been the one ‘handwaving’ your pre-prepared repetitive denials in the face of new evidence from mainstream scientific observations linked to by me. If you do not bother to see the ‘new dots’ of information, and do not bother to make the logical connections between these ‘new dots’ of info, then who is the one ‘handwaving’ from preconceived notions which deny all new info implications to redshift of the many more than previously suspected mass-related processes and deep space conditions-related processes.

Nothing? You haven’t even bothered to look without reading and preconception bias. Obnviously, or you wouldn’t have made the dismissive comments which ignored the new mainstream info linked to that DOES have implications for the actual sources/causes of the redshifted light/CMB detected here and now.

That “threatening” characterization tells us that you are already prejudiced because of the person and the possibility that his ToE may be right and you wrong. Your attitude/reaction is obviously not objective or amenable to processing new information which goes against your reading bias and preconcluded beliefs about what is ‘irrefutable evidence for your expansion/Big Bang current interpretations’, irrespective of new evidence and possibilities to the contrary.

This is become obvious in your responses to the evidence presented already which requires YOU to do some thinking for yourself. Just because I am about to publish my own ToE doesn’t mean you have to not think for yourself and just go along with the orthodoxy at all costs, Origin. At least I am doing original work. You, contrary to the spirit of your chosen moniker “Origin”, seem content to deride original perspectives based on new original information. Maybe you should consider a “disclaimer” attached to your moniker, Origin?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“Not even close”, you declaim so adamantly and vociferously when challenged by new information? Amazing thing to see in a supposed ‘scientist’ , that sort of absolute certainty in one’s own ‘pre-prepared stance’ retort/resistance to new ideas and evidence! Truly amazing, Origin!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you that far gone to NOT seeing new MAINSTREAM information about previously unsuspect/unknown processes and factors which may necessitate a reassessment of the current interpretation of the detected redshift as to its causes/sources in fact? Wow.

I provided links to new mainstream knowledge and discovery that raises questions as to the many previously unsuspected/unknown possible causes and sources of the detected redshift. And all you do is ridicule the person/messenger, while you yourself do not bother to think through the new info and connect the dots for yourself? And your disdain for original RESEARCH as well as original THOUGHT is remarkable in its ANTI-science connotations and tendency to ‘contaminate’ your own objectivity by your own pre-prepared stance and close-minded approach to new mainstream info presented (of which more will be forthcoming in my ToE publication).

Good luck and good thinking to you, Origin; and look to your own “lack of knowledge” and obvious reading/preconceptual biases; and then ‘smile when you say that’ to anyone else, pardner! No sweat, mate. Keep to your own stance, let others get on with the new stuff, hey? Bye.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi OnlyMe.

That is all there if you look at the linked articles, OnlyMe. It requires you to connect it all. The jets are huge. They go on for billions of years else the astronomers would not have detected them here and now as coming from such early far galaxies which must have been EVOLVING over billions of years to the Spiral forms with humongous jets.

The Dark Matter losses to intergalactic space have been observed even before now. The latest articles linked in my posts to Origin and earlier are even more evidence of this process of mass loss to deep intergalactic space well away from any galaxies.

And the DM mass losses are almost a thousand times the Ordinary matter losses to intergalactic DEEP space over those billions of years.

And deep space is no longer as 'empty' as once thought. Mainstream is discovering this more and more; with more energy-mass processes that affect all transiting light in one way or another such that what we detect here and now may not be as clear cut as to source/causes as was previously 'interpreted'.

Please just read what I posted to Origin above before being tempted to post more "me too" dismissals based on uninformed impressions of not only the linked mainstream info but also of the person linking to it for your mainstream consideration.

Gotta go. Bye, OM!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, I have thought it through. How much is massive amounts and what is the amount and distribution of mass that would be needed to cause Andromeda to have a redshift correspondign to Z = 6?

Well then based on the above you are saying that dwarf galaxies should have a huge redshift. Is your prediction correct? I have the answer already - even with dark matter at 1000 times the normal matter the dwarf galaxies do not have the redshift you propose - actually they have no different redshift than a normal galaxy. That pretty muchly kills your conjecture - doesn't it.:shrug:

Obtuse? I thought I have been pretty clear that I do not think you conjecture has any merit at all. Hopefully it is clear now. There is no knee jerking response, the current theory is very sound, I have read your links and read your arm waving conjectures and I do not find them convincing, if that is what you call a knee jerk response, fine.

I would phrase it more like this, a scientific theory trumps arm waving conjecture everytime.

I did read the links and there is no logical or rational connection to redshift. If you could be bothered to do the calculations then I think you would see how illogical and unworkable your conjecture is.

I am not threatened in the slightest. The point is that some of the most educated and brilliant minds of all time have not been able to achieve a ToE. It is laughable that you would think you have a workable ToE. Don't be offended by that, I think it is laughable to think I could do that or even add anything to physics in general.

You just do not have anything compelling. I have read your links and pondered your conjecture on redshifts is and concluded it is DOA. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I haven't looked at the situation. That is a bit arrogant. As far as doing your own work, there are thousands of laypeople with delusions of grandure that publish all kinds of psuedo science and conjectures that in their ignorance they feel are amazing discoveries. Doing your own work that is just plain wrong is nothing to tout.

I am not a scientist, I'm an engineer. I am certain that there will be new discoveries and Big Bang thoery will continue to be modified. Your conjecture is really just rather silly and you would see that if you were not so enamored with your conjecture. The new information you provided is interesting but your interpretation of that information seems flawed to me.

Do you really think that the links you provided are that compelling? Golly.

You sure repeat yourself alot.

The level of your arrogance and delusion is quite amazing. Since the last your last 3 or 4 post have been saying basically the same thing over and over, I guess I am done here this is just so repeatative and really boring. Be sure and post your ToE here. I am sure you will revolutionize physics as we know it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!