tmdarkmatter

The point is that scientists are ignoring this completely. Do we know our velocity? lol

Why are you still mixing up this motion with expansion? My question was: why do we not detect/ignore the redshifting of near objects caused by the movements of our solar system around the center of the milky way? Half of the sky should be more blueshifted and the other half should be more redshifted only because of this motion. Lol, these "negative points" will not improve our understanding of the universe.

So because it is a tangential motion we are allowed to ignored it, that´s interesting. Because even in a tangential motion the linear speed can be between 0 and 1 according to the angle, multiplied by the 222 km/s, but that of course does not matter. I have already explained many times how this is related to expansion, but of course only I should be confused. So we are actually riding a carousel towards Andromeda but some smart and "not confused" guys prefer to interpret that as Andromeda beeing on a collision course with the milky way while the motion of the carousel of 222 km/s can definitely be ignored. Very nice, I love modern science! It all makes a lot of sense. I think that in about 80 million years, Andromeda will be redshifted when it is behind us, so the next civilization with telescopes will consider that Andromeda was always moving away from us. lol

If the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way at a speed of 222 km/s and the galaxy Andromeda is coming closer at a speed of 120 km/s, how can we say that the movement around the milky way should be safely ignored while the movement of Andromeda is very important? Something is wrong here. Are these effects being ignored on purpose to sustain the current model of the universe? If course, if we cannot detect a redshift caused by movements within our galaxy, why should we suppose that movements of galaxies far away should be responsible for their redshift?

I think you did not understand. I am saying that if redshift is not caused by expansion of the universe, we would have to use these other methods (again). One question here: are these effects simply ignored because we cannot measure them or are we indeed able to measure them? If we would be able to measure these local effects, why would we ignore them?

I like to ask the AI about these topics because the AI has no prejudice: @Clyde so gravity exists because of curvature of space-time and the only proof of space-time curvature is gravity? Clyde AI — 10/19/2023 9:29 PM that's correct. gravity is the result of space-time curvature, and the evidence for space-time curvature is the existence of gravity. it's a bit of a circular relationship. Circular relationship? Lol

Interesting that if this was an actual quote from "someone" it has a certain value, but if I am writing it, it must be flawed. Interesting that this is also only based on red shift as well as all the distances of the objects you are mentioning. Red shift is the main tool of this Lambda-CDM model so if we remove that tool, we would have to start from the beginning again. We would have to observe the furthest galaxies for millions of years to see if they get smaller (if they are moving away from us). A question about this paper is, why are they not taking into account the rotation movement of earth? In the morning, when the observer is moving in the direction of the sun, there should be more blue shift and in the evening, when the observer is moving away from the sun, there should be more red shift of the light coming from the sun in this experiment. Or what am I doing wrong? Please tell me. Did they do all their measurements exactly at 12 p.m.? On the other hand, why would the moon have a gravitational force of zero? 2009.10558.pdf (arxiv.org) Even the AI understands what I mean: @Clyde should the rotation movement on earth have an effect on the measurement of the red shifting of galaxies? Yes, the rotation movement of Earth can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the Doppler effect. @Clyde should the movement of earth around the sun have an effect on the measurement ofr the redshifting of galaxies? yes, the movement of Earth around the Sun can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the changing relative velocity between Earth and the observed galaxies. @Clyde should the movement of the solar system around the center of the milky way have an effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies? yes, the movement of the solar system around the center of the Milky Way can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the changing relative velocity between our solar system and the observed galaxies.

It is interesting that they measured the blue shifting of the light coming from the sun due to the graviational well (about 633m/s), but not the red shifting because of its movement into our direction in the morning or away from us in the evening (difference of about 600 m/s as a maximum).

What experiment can I do to get that evidence? So far, the closest possible object where we have detected "blueshift" is Andromeda and I guess it is not possible for us to speed up a light source to 15 km/s to measure a very slight redshift, especially not in a lab. We cannot even detect the red/blue shifting of the planets of our solar system.

What proof do we have that expansion of the universe creates red shift?

Once again, the only evidence is red shift. This is like the current explanation of gravity: "The only proof of space-time curvature is gravity and the only explanation for gravity is space-time curvature." By the way we can say: "The only cause of red shift is expansion of the universe" or "The only cause of red shift is gravitational pull." but we cannot say "Sometimes the cause of red shift is expansion of the universe and sometimes the cause of red shift is gravitational pull (according to need)." So far, we could only confirm the existance of red shift due to gravitational pull so why should we seriously believe in some kind of expansion of the universe? If we say that all the red shift in the universe is only caused by the expansion of the universe, this would mean that the only place where graviational pull causes red shift is in the Harvard tower or that the galaxies out there simply have no mass at all.

Well, the evidence would be red shifting and the cause would be gravitational pull. Why would light that changed its direction millions of times have the same energy than light that never changed its direction? Your question would now be: "why should it not? lol We could define a ray entering a gravitational well as losing a small amount of its energy when it leaves the gravitational well because you would need a certain amount of energy to bend the light back to its original direction. And these little losses of energy would just sum up, even if the gravitational pull of different stars might override each other.

Hello, I am wondering why this topic was not closed yet, as usually happens with my topics. So what is beeing discussed here is that light is "getting tired" over long distances. In that case why should we still think that the universe is expanding, if all the redshift can just be because of this "getting tired" effect? If we want to evaluate how "tired" light gets, we would need to have two spaceships beaming each other at increasing distances. Unfortunately, the gravity of our solar system would always manipulate this experiment, because we just cannot move away far enough into interstellar space. On the other hand, it should even be this gravitational pull what might be creating the redshift. I know that according to current theory, a gravitational well should increase the frequency when "going down" and decresing it when "going up" in the gravitational well and that the total effect should be zero. But what about light beeing bent while travelling through the universe? Can we affirm that light is beeing bent more the further away the source was? For example, if there are 5 stars in between us and the source, maybe the light is slightly beeing bent into one direction by one star, then in the other by the second star, then maybe the same direction by the third star and again back into the original direction by the fourth and fifth star. Maybe the total "shift" might not be very obvious to us, but we should admit that there was more graviational pull exerted than if there were only 3 or 4 stars in between or if the stars had less space/time to bend light. This would mean that on average light is more manipulated the further the source is away from us and this should be the cause of the "getting tired" effect. If that´s the case, there might be no expansion at all and we just have no clue about how old the universe actually is. And what is worse, we might even have to stop using redshift as a "best method" to define the distance between us and the stars.

This "reputation" seems to be only related to resentment the guys here have lol How can asking questions reduce your reputation? This definitely does not make any sense, but it´s funny and shows me where human science stands today. This would have been totally different 30 years ago. This page does not seem to be serious. I came to this conclusion: "If asking questions reduces the reputation, then this is the wrong place to ask questions." "And if this is not a place to ask questions, then it is not a "scientific" forum at all."

And I have another question: If Earth is moving at a speed of about 30 km/s around the sun, shouldn´t we see the milky way more red shifted when it is moving away from us compared to when it is moving towards us? If we can detect the effect of gravity in a little tower on the red shift of light, I think we should also be able to detect this difference every year. And if we move at a speed of about 300 km/s around the center of the milky way, shouldn´t we see the galaxies behind us on this journey more red shifted than the galaxies in front of us? Unfortunately, it seems that we can still not confirm in what direction we are moving around the center of the milky way, but what if we are moving towards Andromeda and this galaxy therefore appears to be moving into our direction because it is more "blue shifted"? By the way, you can give me a -1000 too, I really don´t care about this "reputation" or whatever that should be. If asking the wrong questions means a lower reputation then something is wrong here. Bad reputation should be if I insult somebody or if I do not let others speak or if I post racist text or pornography. So this reputation is just that you do not like somebody showing up with different ideas or asking questions that "apparently were already answered". So the lower my "reputation" gets while asking questions in a civilized manner, the lower the reputation of this website gets and the less credibility I have that people here are objective and open-minded. I am really lucky for not beeing one of your children.

So I started the thread at a higher level. Interesting. I think science is not about me or how smart I am. I think it is about finding answers to questions. But if you think that space does not need a good definition or that we already know everything about space, ok, whatever. Then explain to me how this space expands and why. And I must say that the article swansont posted here is quite interesting. Thank you.

Yes, I understand what you mean. But instead of increasing the distance between the galaxies, we can also say that all the galaxies are just shrinking and the result would be the same. This would mean that all atoms and even photons are shrinking. If space cannot be defined as an identity or size, there is no real reference for us to compare our sizes with, so the measuring tape we are using to measure objects on earth would also be shrinking and therefore we would not even realize that we are indeed shrinking. Maybe the size of the universe is always the same and it just began with a lot of huge galaxies with enormous atoms that have been shrinking since the beginning. This would be the "shrinkverse" lol. If we could observe the universe from outside (with other benchmarks) and it would not change its size, then the "shrinkverse" would definitely be a reality. It is also strange that there is absolutely no expansion within galaxies because of the effect of gravity holding the galaxies together. It seems artificial that there should be absolute borders between regions with expansion and regions without. Will gravity (a weak force) really be strong enough to hold all kind of objects together, even some highly scattered huge nebulae? On the other hand it is also quite strange that the expansion of the universe is completely homogeneous. Why would that be the case? It seems completely unnatural, because it would be the only force or effect in the universe that is absolutely homogeneous. I think there are two ways to absolutely confirm that the universe is expanding. 1. If we can really confirm that galaxies are getting smaller because they are moving away from us. In order to do this, we would need to observe the same galaxy for millions of years. 2. If, from the 200 billion galaxies we found so far, there is at least one of them becoming invisible because it is crossing the visible horizon so we can no longer see it. That would also be a perfect proof that galaxies are moving away. Until we get this confirmation, we will just keep holding on to red shift as the only "proof" of expansion, but considering that gravity can also be the cause of red shift, I think that this "proof" alone is insufficient. But this is only my opinion. The only thing we would need to find is a mechanism of why light coming from the furthest galaxies has to leave a bigger gravitational well than light coming from closer galaxies and suddenly the universe never expanded. Therefore, I wish we would have one of the methods mentioned above to actually confirm the expansion.

But you mean that the space between each pair of galaxies should expand at the same speed and therefore those that are far away move away faster because there are more of these "distances between galaxies" and this speed is even increasing (acceleration). So you suppose that the "network of galaxies" is perfect and homogeneously expaning? Of course, all this should apply if the universe is infinite.

Ok, so it is wrong to even ask these questions about space. So you mean that galaxies all move away from us at the same speed and that from our perspective we see the ones further away moving away faster only because the light needs more time to reach us?

Also, this is not compatible with a universe where the acceleration depends on the distance away from us. If galaxies 13.5 billion light years away move away from us almost at the speed of light and galaxies next to us almost do not move away from us in the same time frame, this is not possible. Do you mean that space cannot be measured?

Because of the stretching while it was en route, presumably. Hi Joigus, long time no see! But if we stick to the idea that we are point A and the galaxy we see 13.5 billion years away is point B and the light coming from this point B travelled for 13.5 billion years only to travel 2.8 billion light years, how can you explain that if not combing both movements, the movement of photons and the movement of expansion? Why do we need to separate both movements when the photon travelling remains the same under influence of both movements? I also think that we still need a better definition of space. If space expands, shouldnt its characteristics change with time? Can a certain amount of space at the beginning of the universe contain the same amount of atoms than space billions of year later, or is there a difference? Will space always allow for the same movements of particles passing through it or will particles need more/less energy to cross this space in the future? Will the speed of light through this expanding space always remain the same? Will the effect of gravity through this space always remain the same? Will time allways pass by the same in this space? I think we should still investigate all this. On the other hand, I wanted somebody to tell me if the light coming from a galaxy far away would not need much more time to travel through the first lightyear of space (effective distance) then to travel through the last lightyear (effective distance) before reaching us, because the effect of expansion on these photons is much higher at the beginning of their journey, because the distance to point A is much longer and therefore there is more expansion of the space in between. Of course this is if we are allowed to combine the movement of photons with the movement of expansion in a common space. I also still do not understand why the image of the light coming from this galaxy far away would not be more similar to a galaxy at a distance of 2.8 billion light years or even closer, because this light never was 13.5 billion light years away from us. But I think Genady already said that the galaxy looks much bigger than it should be. What does that mean? We just make the same space bigger?

Please explain.

I can see that with the expansion, we are just creating new space out of nowhere and we are parking our extra light from these old galaxies there, so it needs more time to reach us. So, actually we suppose that this universe is going to be converted into a lightverse (space only filled with light) without any visible galaxies and that all these galaxies are going to disperse completely unevenly (soccer field with pinhead in the center) until they all desintegrate. During the "big bang", matter was created out of nowhere, so why can we not create "space" out of nowhere too? What if we are wrong with all the redshift theory? Isn´t it much more logical that the universe is not expanding at all, instead of the need to create space and matter out of nowhere? What if gravity is responsible for red shifting instead and bing bang never happened? Did you ever question all these ideas? Isn´t it highly suspicious that we are existing exactly in a perfect time to see a sky full of galaxies? Why do we not exist a couple of billions of years later when most of these galaxies are gone, or a couple of billions of years earlier, when the density of the galaxies would be extremely high so we could not sleep at night. I am wondering what kind of sky the first cyanobacteria on earth had above them. Was it a sky full of galaxies or was it the same then today? Also, the entire universe should be slowly cooling down due to this expansion, so the galaxies we see far away should actually be much hotter than ours. Anway, of course this is what we have so far. I am just trying to challenge you. There is no need to define me as a troll. I can also accept everything that is beeing offered to me since I was born and never question anything. I can repeat everything like a parrot too. But if we all think alike, no one is actually thinking.

It's not perfect and it's not mine.. Another of your misunderstandings. Your misstatements show that you clearly don't understand the model. Don't take it personally. I was just offering up a suggestion that I thought might help. It won't hurt my feelings if you choose to dismiss my suggestion. Thank you, these are the things I want to read. I prefer to not understand a model instead of eagerly defending a model that is incorrect. But I still do not know what model would be correct. I am just asking questions. Anyway, you already recognized that there should be an "effective speed of light" that is different than the "actual speed of light". Now the only thing I need to do is to convince you that this "effective speed" does not depend on time, but it depends on the distance a galaxy is away from us. The further away, the lower the "effective speed" and the closer to us, the more would this "effective speed" be equivalent to the "actual speed of light" until reaching equality at distance zero. Another fact I should convince you of is that this light is never further away from earth than these 2.8 billion light years. So this light never travels the distance of 13.5-2.8 = 10.7 billion light years, while the galaxy in fact does move away on this path (or a similar path).

So you admit that this light was travelling at only about 20% of the speed of light or that the "average effective speed of light" was just 0,20740741 C. Using the word "presumably" indicates me that your model does not seem to be perfect yet or that you are not completely convinced yet.