Thanks for giving my comment some consideration.
Theory of Everything
- Thread starter sscully
- Start date
There is no motion towards the Great Attractor; the Milky Way is in ORBIT about the GA, just like the sun is in orbit about the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, in the system I am describing. The "redshift in all distant redshifted galaxies" is a much more complex understanding that requires you to first see that gravity is causing observations in the first place. Thats why I start with the CMB Dipole and the other "Local" galaxy groups I refer to. Ultimately, photons can travel THROUGH the Great Attractor because it is so dense (galaxies = atoms) so it can go THROUGH, come out the other side, be lensed back inward, go through again, and repeat this in a Figure-8 pattern which precisely IS THE SAME as an electromagnetic field. This is how electromagnetic fields operate; particles that are sufficiently small pass THROUGH the mass without being absorbed because the space between the larger masses is so large that the probability of absorption decreases as the particle is relatively smaller and smaller. This Figure-8 pattern has two portions of motion, radially and orbitally. The radial motion has an overall blueshift/redshift that is approximately zero because the inward blueshift is canceled by the subsequent outward redshift. However, the orbital motion redshifts EVERY TIME and there is never any cancellation of this redshift effect. This is why we see all distant redshifted galaxies, we are seeing light that has been trapped in a Figure-8 pattern with the GA for many many cycles through such that the orbital redshift portions add up to larger and larger values. This is also why the GA is far closer (~150 million lightyears?) than the distances we observe (12+ billion lightyears), because the light is stuck in this Figure-8 pattern.
You have to first see that the Big Bang's assumption of redshift being caused by expansion of space i.e. doppler shift is wrong, otherwise your model will inherit this same critical mistake.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Your very welcome.
Your Ignorant portrayal of current knowledge continues.
It's not Doppler...It's a cosmological redshift.
Some of our Alternative hypothesis pushers are driven by myths and an effort to disprove science so as to gain support for their God myth crap.
Others are more driven by a personal self gratutitious "delusions of grandeur" attitude that they know more then anyone else, including all our giants of the past and present.
Even others are consumed by an anti science stance in general and "tall poppy syndrome" that drives their stupidity.
But here we have one driven by all three...a real doozy!
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
"Some redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is Cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field.""
From the wiki,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
From the wiki,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
"Although cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body."
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/cosmological+redshift
This should clear up the confusion.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/cosmological+redshift
This should clear up the confusion.
Yes, but the way in which it functions is equivalent to Doppler shift due to expansion of space opposed to peculiar motion. The ONLY REASON they distinguish it from Doppler Shift is because they are actively making an effort to not break the laws of physics (nothing can go faster than the speed of light) by inputting an expansion of space characteristic that was not before recognized. They ADD to physics instead of recognizing the philosophical flaw of this; the redshift is instead caused by gravity which means no need for any additional physics (expansion of space, dark energy, etc).
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
"For example, in a distant binary system it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift. The Doppler shift would be determined by the motions of the individual stars in the binary – whether they were approaching or receding at the time the photons were emitted. The cosmological redshift would be determined by how far away the system was when the photons were emitted. The larger the distance to the system, the longer the emitted photons have travelled through expanding space and the higher the measured cosmological redshift."
From the same site as above. You really should go more indepth and research the actual science.
From the same site as above. You really should go more indepth and research the actual science.
Do you understand that paragraph? What they do is subtract the cosmological redshift ACCORDING TO HUBBLE'S LAW. This is important. They don't actually know the peculiar motion, they just know the distance away and that correlates to a redshift according to Hubble's Law. With that removed, the rest must be peculiar motion Doppler Shift. However, the way in which cosmological redshift functions is unequivocally Doppler Shift, as I described above.
To quote the wikipedia page that "I should go more indepth and research the actual science" from: They initially interpreted these redshifts and blueshifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space.[18] As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift.
In terms of HOW it produces a redshift, it is the same mechanism as Doppler shift, just its caused by a stretching of space instead of peculiar motion. It is still Doppler shift.
Our friend will not go into it in any depth, as he is grossly burdened with a religious agenda.....and delusions of grandeur to boot. [psst, he claims to have a ToE!
]Our friend will not go into it in any depth, as he is grossly burdened with a religious agenda.....and delusions of grandeur to boot. [psst, he claims to have a ToE!
So, if the world agrees with me one day, will you listen to my religious "agenda"? You do realize you put that "psst" IN the ToE thread, as if he is unaware....
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
You are saying that space is not expanding, and gravity is twisting light into a figure eight, then it is sent on its way to us, where we have misinterpreted the info?
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Do you not think gravity has been considered before?
"Astronomical observations of distant galaxies reveal that we cannot explain their redshifts by either the Doppler or gravitational redshift mechanisms without ending up with unphysical answers. General relativity, in the guise of Big Bang cosmology, however, predicts just what we are seeing in terms of the redshift caused by the expansion of space."
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q56.html
"Astronomical observations of distant galaxies reveal that we cannot explain their redshifts by either the Doppler or gravitational redshift mechanisms without ending up with unphysical answers. General relativity, in the guise of Big Bang cosmology, however, predicts just what we are seeing in terms of the redshift caused by the expansion of space."
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q56.html
Yes and it was written off because its in all directions. I can explain precisely how it is caused by the Great Attractor, of which the Milky Way orbits. See posts #74, #78, #79, #1 in this thread to begin to understand how gravity is causing all observations on the large-scale.
This will arrive at a universe that consists of infinitely divisible mass, infinite volume, and gravity. So simple and elegant and ETERNAL; philosophically sound as well as scientifically. No addition of expansion of space, no addition of dark energy, but instead subtraction of the other three fundamental laws of nature, which Occam's Razor strongly suggests should be the case philosophically; why should there be 4 laws when there can be one?
Note: No, that is not all my evidence, it is just what you need to understand to first see that it is being caused by gravity and not expansion of space.
Last edited:
This reveals that you have no idea what an education involves. In the first place, science is based in experimental observation, which continues into the graduate's professional life. Your claims that "it ain't so" won't reverse the results folks like AlexG and Origin know firsthand, through actual measurement. But who is this "someone else" you are discrediting? Thales, Pythagoras, Hipparchus and Appollonius? Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton? Gauss, Ampere, Faraday, Coulomb and Maxwell? Fitzeau, Michelson, Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein? Or maybe Mendel, Hutton, Lamarck, Lyell and Darwin? That's just a fraction of what's covered in freshman year. In fact there are more scientists and mathematicians than you could read in your whole life who have "told us" about the laws of Nature. Of course they don't tell them like your Bible stories. They tell them through the discussions of evidence and the questions of the day regarding the facts that have been repeatedly corroborated, and special cases of new ideas that are currently being explored, from which tomorrow's discoveries will be made, just as all these anonymous sources you are discrediting have led the charge and broken the barriers between ignorance and knowledge over the ages.
What do you propose we do with all this vast knowledge? Burn the books? Too late, it's all preserved digitally. So what, other than an infantile jealousy that the literate people of the world were fortunate enough to get an education, is wrong with one person telling the rest of us about his or her discovery through publication? Sounds like the naive narcissism of psychopathy has bent you into a state of denial.
Ok, I'm calling you out. Prove that anything found in a standard curriculum for math or science is invalid and should be removed. Name one mathematician or scientist whose work is in the curricula and should be removed, and prove it.
Otherwise retract the statement.
Posts 74, 78, 79, 1 of this thread. If you would like to dispute them, you are going to need to make scientific arguments against what I say and not just sweeping "it must be wrong" like every other disputer thus far, since I am explicitly presenting my evidence (in part). In other words, why ISN'T gravity doing what I am saying it is doing in those posts?
You can't read? I was attacking post 26. The burden of proof is on you. Bring one piece of empirical evidence forward, if you even know what that is.
Utter nonsense. Radio waves don't travel "in all directions"? Why should gravity "travel" differently?
The Milky Way orbits the galactic core, as do all of the other galaxies ever seen. The fundamental flaw, other than abject ignorance of science, is that you are not even interested in any of the vast wealth of experimental evidence upon which all of science is based. Do you tell your plumber how to sweat pipe? How do you presume to tell experts how to do their work when you can' even pass the entrance exams that got them started in their careers?
In your dreams. It has nothing to do with reality. Go get the evidence that shores up even one of your bogus claims. There is none. Bad, bad poster.
:spank:
That's not what Ockham's Razor refers to, nor does the nonsense you are spouting have any relevance to the actual way nature works, which requires you to study it before you get up on your soapbox and start spouting "divine revelation" about what makes what tick. You're just making all of this up to compensate for dropping out of school.
Just plain ignorant rant.
You can't read? I was attacking post 26. The burden of proof is on you. Bring one piece of empirical evidence forward, if you even know what that is.
Utter nonsense. Radio waves don't travel "in all directions"? Why should gravity "travel" differently?
The Milky Way orbits the galactic core, as do all of the other galaxies ever seen. The fundamental flaw, other than abject ignorance of science, is that you are not even interested in any of the vast wealth of experimental evidence upon which all of science is based. Do you tell your plumber how to sweat pipe? How do you presume to tell experts how to do their work when you can' even pass the entrance exams that got them started in their careers?
In your dreams. It has nothing to do with reality. Go get the evidence that shores up even one of your bogus claims. There is none. Bad, bad poster.
:spank:
That's not what Ockham's Razor refers to, nor does the nonsense you are spouting have any relevance to the actual way nature works, which requires you to study it before you get up on your soapbox and start spouting "divine revelation" about what makes what tick. You're just making all of this up to compensate for dropping out of school.
Just plain ignorant rant.
And I was referring you to my proof. I am not rewriting my evidence, read posts 1, 74, 78, 79. Name calling is definitely a sign of a mature mind.