Some questions for better understanding of Main Stream Cosmology

I'm of the opinion that there are only a handful of actual people behind the sock puppet army that loves to troll these threads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it is not an artifact of math, it's physics. And I already told you, it spreads out over time. The time standards are not the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats quite audacious for an English Teacher to put three periods after responding to a difficult Physics question.

The related question is, Photon emitted from a Galaxy (Say 3 bly away) will encounter multiple expansion points in space (rather it will be continuous expansion zone barring few places of Gravity control).

Then how can we be so sure that red shift is only for the first segment (Space nearest to the emitting Galaxy), rather it should be a summation (kind of integral) of continuous space expansion. If we do this calculation, then the speed assigned to remote Galaxy space will be far less than what is being calculated today.

 

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

 

And that has been the line he has pushed since he started in this forum....finding imaginary problems where eith none exist or that are trivial.

 

????
Double dutch, but lets have a go......
A photon emitted from a galaxy 3 billion L/years away, would be in our local group and only experiencing positive gravitation redshift and blue shift, and Doppler redshift and blue shift.......
Any cosmological redshift is drowned out, so to speak by gravity's fatal attraction.

 

Yes, it most certainly is...many times over.
"Tired light" Check out "Tolman surface brightness test"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
If you were really interested, you could have check that out yourself.

 

Tired light part is one alternative explanation, which got ruled out due to brightness aspect as on date.

But the question is not in support of Tired Light, it is about the present day explanation of red shift.

The relativistic answer given is multiple frames, pure mathematics, where Energy kind of fades away in mathematical operations, the conservation aspect of Energy goes for a toss? It is not the question of one photon, imagine the amount of Energy consumed by mathematical operators in millions and billions of photons arriving. But thats ok, if thats what mainstream says...

But the second question, which cannot be justified even with mathematics, remains unanswered....

The photon from remote Galaxy X, encounters continuous expansion throughout its journey, then how come Red Shift is indicative of expansion only near the Galaxy X?? Let us draw circles keeping Earth(observer) as center and of radius 500 mly, 1000 mly, 1500 mly, 2000 mly etc. The photon which is received from Galaxy at 2000 mly is treated as red shifted only near this Galaxy space..Why?? First it would expanded at d= 2000 mly, then at d = 1500 mly, then at d = 1000 mly etc.. This is just the discrete aspect, but in principle this is continuous expansion, so it is clearly incorrect to treat the Red Shift only of d = 2000 mly. The redshift is of continuous journey period, not of the space near origin.. Please provide me with a link which answers this question. If we do mathematics keeping in view the continuous aspect of space expansion, then the space expansion velocities will differ substantially at d = 2000 mly, then what is estimated. And if you bring in Gravitational red and blue shift (as shown by Pound and Rebka), then the mathematics become far more complex.

And Paddoboy, you are a prolific poster, pl do not act smart and get into some kind of self praise group..terming few as actual and rest all as sock puppets is not a desirable thing in such public forums. The very Declan Lunny rightly rubbished your out of context post referring to Uncertainty principle. So lets act straight...right is right and crap is crap... We are all non professionals (in the field of cosmology) and got fascinated, and thanks to internet we know about GR / SR / Lensing / Red Shift / Hubble / BB / Inflation / BH / DM / DE / Baryons / Space-time etc, but lets humble ourselves to the fact that our knowledge is mostly derived out of our ability to understand relevant topic by googling it..

 

Here is scenario for you that maybe will help you to understand what is going on here. Lets say a person throws a ball at you at 100 km/hr and it hits you in the head. That would be quite painful. Now lets assume you are riding in the back of a truck moving at 98 km/hr and just as you pass a person he throws a ball at you at 100 km/hr. The ball again hits you in the head but it is only a light tap. Where did the energy go?

It isn't. What makes you think it is?
This has been a continual problem throughout this thread; you say you oppose the mainstream view when you do not even know what the mainstream view is!

Since you were wrong on your premise this paragraph is superfluous.

The shifts from gravitation is negligable.

Most of my knowledge on astronomy and cosmology come from a couple of college textbooks i purchased several years ago.

 

He has been told that at least twice before, along with any Doppler.

BHoT, Gravity's Fatal Attraction...Black Holes and Time Warps, Hyperspace, Superforce, and a few more I can't remember at this time.
Plus visiting forums such as this, and being able to sort the wheat from the chaf.

 

3 billion L/years in our Local Group ??? But such things happen when you post around 100 a week.

 

And "origin" states in Post # 130..

And then Paddoboy shifts the stand in #131

Guys !! Gear up and show some consistency even in mistakes..

 

Huh ???

You keep suggesting others to take a class in cosmology, I suggest you take a basic course in elementary Physics.

 

Why? What part of that do you think is wrong?

 

That is ironic coming from somebody who has yet to demonstrate any knowledge of cosmology. I am really not sure what your agenda is, you clearly have one I am just patiently waiting to find out what it is.

Not sure why paddoboy wrote this.

He seems to be saying that you will not see a redshift from expansion due to gravity, but that does not fit with what he has previously said about cosmology. Lets wait to see his response.

 

What is correct about that weird explanation ?? In the red shift we are not talking about change in energy once it collides with Earth (collide = just to equate with your weirdo), while the example which you have given is simple elementary Physics, hence the friendly advise. You should have safely kept this Energy Conservation conundrum to relativity only like Aqueous did. Because there is no better explanation.

 

Rest assured no agenda. Coincidentally (like you introduced yourself) I am also an Electrical Engineer with around 26 years experience, and I never was in 25%, I was always numero-uno. I am also equally fascinated by cosmology the way you are. The difference is if there are difficult questions in science, which require some fixing, then I do not accept them at the face of it. It is immaterial if anything changes because of my accepting or not, but I do not surrender or get bullied by loud noise.

 

But we certainly do have Red Shift due to Gravity. Refer to Pound Rebka experiment, which could observe red shift due to gravity attraction on Earth. The point is if they could see a very small fraction of Red Shift on Earth, then the photon which is travelling millions of years and passing through various Gravitational Zones will certainly get nicely hammered on both the sides (Red - Blue)... do not tell me that it will neutralize.

Moreover the Great dark matter Halo also won't leave photon unscathed, at least on Gravitational aspect ( do not confuse with no interaction of Photon with Dark Matter - We are talking about Gravitational Shift). Also I could not see any integration calculations of Red Shift from a remote Galaxy, it should be done because cosmological expansion is present everywhere. The red shift is simply treated as that happened with d = galaxy start point space.

 

Of course you do.
1. You say you disagree with theories that you do not understand at all.
2. When it is pointed out that your understanding is wrong, you ignore the correction or change the subject to another theory.

If you are an EE (which seems unlikely) then you should be smart enough to understand this stuff.

No you aren't. If you were interested like me you would learn about cosmology before assuming that it is wrong.

You have no idea if the "difficult questions" need "fixing", because it is obvious that you do not understand the current answers to those questions!