tmdarkmatter

Wait, the text says that these are the displacements of planets once we see them passing close to the sun´s limb from our perspective, right? So why does their displacement depend on the distance to the sun, if the "non negligible" bending only takes place less than 5 solar diameters away from the sun? It would not matter if the planet is 20 solar diameters or 1,000,000 solar diameters away from the sun, because there would be no important effect on the light travelling at this distance from the sun. What I mean is that according this text the light leaves Jupiter, travels in a straight line towards the sun and is only deviated by the sun´s gravity once it is less than 5 solar diameters away from the sun. And when this light is moving from the sun to earth it is again moving in a straight line. So why does it matter if the straight lines are 1 light second, 1 light minute or 1 light year long? The angle won´t change.

But why would the displacement be different for the different planets? And why would it be so different?

It is interesting that on the one hand beyond the distance of 5 solar radii the light ray should be pradically straight and on the other hand from earth we should consider a displacement of 0.49 for Mercury and a displacement of 1.69 for Neptune, while for the observer on Earth it should be considered that the distance to the sun is similar to "infinite". All this does not make sense. If there is only bending very close to the sun, why should there be a huge difference of the displacement between Mercury and Neptune? And what would be the displacement for all of these planets if the observer was further away than Pluto?

It is interesting how simplified this approach is. Instead of light having to pass by individual stars to reach us, the light just needs to pass by a "central point" of the galaxy where you just sum up all the mass of the stars and position that mass on a single point. So when the light passes by stars very closely, according to your calculations these stars would have no mass at all, because you had already summed up their mass in the center of the galaxy. Imagine light having to pass by thousands of stars, each of them deviating by 1.75 arc-sec or even much less. I think this approach is too simple but maybe I am wrong.

of course you are right

Did you check the images of the stars during the Eclipse that made Einstein famous? Not only the closest ones were displaced. Of course the further away from the sun, the lower is the displacement, according to the 1/r^2 equation, but this equation also never reaches an absolute zero. Only the stars that are completely opposite to the sun should maintain their original direction within the solarsystem, if not displaced by planets. I am not interested in conspiracy theories. I am interested in understanding the universe a little better.

I think it is interesting that we can clearly observe and measure the famous Einstein rings, but currently we consider that the remaining light passing by galaxies, if not beeing part of an Einstein ring, just travels totally straight, and that´s a big mistake. If gravity has an infinite range, our entire image of the universe is completely distorted. Even our own sun is distorting the image of the universe before it reaches us. When it was discovered that the sun bends light, they were happy because they could give Einstein a Nobel prize, but they did not further investigate what this bending would actually mean to us. What I mean with "If 7 minutes of sun gravity can bend the light by 1.75 arc-sec" it´s just an example of what we should expect to happen when light passes by a galaxy. The deviation does not only depend on the force gravity exerts on it, but also on the time of exposure. I know that GR would just say that space-time is bent to make it easier, but a Jet also has to spend more fuel the longer it travels around earth. I think when we observe Einstein rings, we are just observing the most distorted light surrounded by other distorted light where we do not really know the position of its sources, so the entire image is distorted, not only the rings. So we are considering the light right next to the Einstein ring as travelling straight and compare the Einstein ring with that (normal, not distorted) light to calculate the mass of the object involved, when the light next to the ring is also distorted. Therefore, the mass can be different too. Don´t worry, you are not "forced" to do anything here. But I hope everything went well with your surgery and thank you for the video. I will watch it today when I have more time. A great evidence that would make me shut up would be images of galaxies becoming smaller and smaller due to expansion, but we would have to wait for millions of years.

Ok, in that case there is no proof of a big bang, dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe. There is not even a clear proof that all of these galaxies we see are actually anywhere close to what we see. The light can also be bent to such an extent that the light of our own milky way is coming back from billions of different angles to us, simulating faraway galaxies. So we should stop speculating until we can travel to these galaxies. Don´t forget that we do not see stars, we only see some light and this light is bent, deviated, manipulated in a sense we still don´t know. If 7 minutes of sun gravity can bend the light by 1.75 arc-sec, I am wondering by how much the light should be bent when travelling through the universe.

And what are these answers?

What kind of answers should I expect for the questions "Where does dark energy come from?" or "Is it possible that the redshift of the furthest galaxies is not related to expansion?"

Not really, but thank you anyway

But what if they cannot answer basic questions?

I define it as "the environment"

Oh, I forgot that I must somehow show you that I am smart. But I prefer to be stupid and say: "No, I have no idea." Because that would mean that I still have the opportunity to learn. Something I am not seeing very often in current human science. Please do not get offended. I just want people to relax a little.

There is no real evidence of its existance, there is only the redshift effect humanity is still not understanding and the background light that is confusing them. Radiation that is deviated from its original course should always lose part of its energy, and light coming from galaxies far away were deviated thousands of times for millions or billions of years. There is no "straight" light.

Why should there be dark energy? Why would a static universe be unstable? "By the way, for those who are not familiar with human science, GR means that silly theory that space-time is bent." "Oh, that one with the balls and the hole?" "Yeah, they still have not discovered yet how gravity works."

Why are we again turning away from the universe and its explanation? Who cares who I am or if I believe or not. That does not modify reality. Why should the universe expand?

If you prefer, just change it to -9999 and I won´t care. If there can be no incredulity, there is no science, only fundamentalism. Real science also does not need to be persuasive, because numbers and facts should convince on their own.

Instead of some negative points I prefer some intelligent answers lol And it´s funny to think that space expands just because.

So we are using this model because "it is less complicated"? What about finding the truth? lol Of course what is most important for us religious humans is having a universe with z>1 so there is always a mystery for us. How would you confirm the existence of z>1 if you never measured that in any of the billion galaxies? Why would you try to explain something that still does not exist? Why not try to explain some supernatural event? If space is "nothing", how can "nothing" "expand"? And you still did not answer what makes this movement special in order to distinguish it from the "moving away" movement. This is still ONLY an increase of the distance in a certain time in both versions.

This is interesting. How would you define the difference between two points separating from each other because of their movements and two points separating from each other because of expansion? What exactly would be the difference? According to maths, there would be no difference at all, because it is just some Δx/t. Maths does not care where the Δx comes from. What I want to say is that before speculating with the movements of the furthest galaxies and expansion of the universe, we should first try to figure out what kind of redshift or blueshift we can find in those objects surrounding us, so we can define what the effects of different movements on redshift should be, before we can confirm if galaxies are indeed moving away from us or if their redshift has another cause (like gravity). Creating special rules for galaxies that are "not gravitationally bound" would only lead to false theories. By the way, how should a galaxy not be gravitationally bound if the force of gravity is infinite?

So can be measure the blue shift of Andromeda from an extragalactic point in space, not beeing on the Milky Way carousel? This means the movement of Andromeda on its own axis, not our movement around the center of the milky way (?) Andromeda has its own tangential movement, so we should see one half of Andromeda more redshifted than the other half. By the way, this red- or blueshift should even be much more intense in the center of the galaxies, where the movements are much faster. If the center of the Andromeda galaxy moves at a speed of 2000 km/s and our position is not in a 90 degree angle to the surface of the galactic disk, we should be able to observe this movement, especially with Andromeda, where we are definitely not in an angle of 90 degree (just check a picture of Andromeda). Now if you say that there is no detectable blueshift/redshift because of this movement, than the universe is also not expanding, because the cause of redshift would not be the movement of galaxies/light sources.

So are scientists having in mind these "pedestrian speeds" when calculating the redshift of Andromeda or not?

Well, I guess that if the "pedestrian speeds" should be ignored, I think I can make a joke about ignoring the movements of Andromeda too, because we are moving much faster around the center of the galaxy than Andromeda is moving into our direction.

If we can ignore these pedestrian speeds, shouldn't we also ignore the blueshift of Andromeda? This blueshift is way too low for us to take it into account. All this drama of Andromeda hitting the milky way is just fake news, because the blueshift is just too low and is completely negligible.