Rate of change of redshift. Humble question

Recommended Posts

I posted this in Speculation because I know it will end up here anyway. But that's fine! I'm a speculator. But this thread will be an exercise in logic as much as speculation. I think I might even present a puzzle that some on here will enjoy resolving (if possible). This is a "wall of text" but for the entire picture to be painted, it required the entire canvas and spectrum of colors that I could muster.

I am going to submit a question to the able minded and more thoroughly researched individuals of this forum. The question is, is there published observational data that shows THE RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIfTING GALAXY CLUSTERS?

The acceleration of the expanding universe is being supported with redshift data. Galaxy clusters that are known to be far from us have a redshift. I'm a radio hobbyist so I do have a thorough understanding of wavelengths. So we observe that the wavelength of the galaxy clusters that are 2x the distance of the galaxy clusters that are (x) distance have a proportionally longer wavelength on the EM spectrum. This is cited as evidence of not only expansion but also acceleration. Our minds would need to have data showing roughly equivalent redshifts everywhere we look to conclude that the expansion was a steady phenomenon overall. One thing that can be determined with some certainty is that the known universe is expanding. It is the acceleration phenomenon that trips up some of us and causes pause for further careful thought.

We are presented the balloon, elastic band, loaf of raisin bread, *insert your pet model here* model and the logic is hard to debate. I indeed can see myself at point A, a galaxy cluster at distance X and another galaxy cluster at distance 2X and visualize that 2X seems to be accelerating. This defies logic, but when we consider that our location at point A is not static then it makes perfect sense. This brings out the two train model with two trains speeding away from each other.

HOWEVER the train model is flawed and can't be properly used. The 3 galaxy cluster model is a 3 point model. The train is a 2 point model. For the train model to be proper, we must have 3 trains somehow interacting. That would be hard to imagine. We could have ourselves aboard a train moving at speed X, a train moving in the opposite direction at speed 2X, and another moving in the same direction as the second train at 4X But that can't fit because the observation of the second train with respect to the third train is not under the same observational conditions as our train moving at speed X in the opposite direction. The flaw is that both observed  trains are moving in the same direction and we are moving in the opposite aboard our train. So that nifty Einsteinian concept of the two trains moving in opposite directions at the speed of light etc etc can't be applied.

So the solution to having a 3 point model would be to have our train stationary. Train 2 would be going speed X. We would need for train 3 to be traveling at speed 2X. Ok that fits. We have accelerated expansion. But wait, no we don't. Train 3 is accelerating with respect to train 2. Certainly train 3 will leave train 2 in the dust given enough time. And certainly from our perspective on stationary train one, we would see this. Yet, neither train is actually accelerating. Both trains are traveling at a constant speed. Let's say 50 mph and 100 mph. If both blew their whistle, the pitch for the 50 mph train would be higher than the 100 mph train. There would be a Doppler shift. Without question. But to claim acceleration, we would have to take measurements in intervals

and see if train 2 is now moving at 100 mph and train 3 is now moving at 200 mph. 200 and 400, 400 and 800 infinitum.

The problem with this model is that we are stationary. We are thinking geocentrically. We'd really prefer in our scientific minds a way to have all 3 trains moving simultaneously in a way that replicates the 2 train model. I had insomnia last night trying to come up with such a beast and came up empty. If you have one, here is your chance!!!

After my night of insomnia, I came to a stark realization. The only way to analyze (with objectivity and honesty) the idea of an accelerating universe is to produce observational data that measures REDSSHIFT RATE OF CHANGE with respect to all observable clusters and each other. I concluded that the problem with geocentric analysis of redshift is that it skews perception. We can't be geocentric minded because logic would dictate that our local cluster is not fixed. It is moving away from all the observable clusters just as the observable clusters are moving away from us and each other. The raisin bread concept does in fact work. But you can't analyze the loaf from the center. You can't analyze the loaf from the outside by focusing on an individual raisin or from the perspective of the raisin. You have to analyze the loaf as a whole. Your eyes can't focus. I'm also an artist. I know that a key concept in art is to create a center of attention and work outward with the painting conceptualization. De Vinci was a master at this, the Last Supper is a good example. It is difficult to look at anything without focusing on something then working outward from the focal point.

The absolute key of resolving this conundrum is to accept that the only way to analyze the universe with honesty is studying the behavior of any two given galaxy clusters with respect to **each other**, and to totally exclude our own galaxy cluster from the problem. Because we are moving too, in an impossible to determine direction (because we lack any kind of stable reference point), our perspective by definition is skewed. Our redshift data is only applicable to the **nearest** galaxy cluster (the two train model). All other data is essentially meaningless with **one exception.**. It does offer a good explanation for why there is an observable horizon to the edge of the universe as we know it. I will agree that the net effect is to have those galaxy clusters on the cusp approaching the equivalent of light speed, and those beyond are *at* or beyond "warp", causing the wavelength of their EM emissions to essentially be "negative", or put another way, their EM emission is too slow and following them outward. Science has used observational principles to explain something and that is good!!!

But the reality of our limitations also creates problems that by definition hinders our ability to do certain things that we badly want to do. We cannot analyze the nature of the edge of the observable universe with honest objectivity and declare that we can approximate the age. We therefore cannot calculate how long ago the Big Bang happened. We also must accept that understanding what lies beyond the reaches of that edge is an excercise of the imagination. We might follow a principle that says that physical laws are the same everywhere and we may be right. But we also must accept that this is something that requires a certain degree of faith or assumption. The end conclusion is the same. It is required that we admit that we don't know and may never know.

As far as I can see, my assertions do not violate any of Einsteins or Newtons postulates or laws or theories. They may violate the speculations of the mainstream, but this is simply a challenge not a declaration I am making. The concept of spacetime may still hold up, gravitational waves, all of it. I'm not challenging those ideas. I'm challenging the interpretation of Hubble's observations and the observations that were published in 1998 that led to all the dark matter and energy hubbalaloo. I'm challenging the concept of acceleration.

I googled the terms "rate of change redshift" and I did not find any meaningful scientific  query about this. I did find that some other people have considered this however. One assertion that I will make is that fundamental principles dictate that rate of change MUST be a consideration. But here is the problem with that. Humans are waaaaay too impatient for declarations of scientific knowledge to wait the hundreds of years that are required for such an exhaustive and comprehensive study.

I did find this link where an author of science fiction had done some thinking (as any good science fiction writer would have to do!) and he has blogged about this same conundrum and reached the same conclusion:

http://alien-log.blogspot.com/2011/07/evidence-that-universe-is-not-expanding.html?m=1

This fellow is obviously a fan of UFO related ideas. I don't believe this qualifies him as a quack. If he was a Bigfoot or Loch Ness fiend I might have some trouble. Many respected SETI scientists are UFO connoisseurs. Yes it's on the blurred edge between science and pseudoscience, but his perspective as a sci-fi author, I think, who undoubtedly has studied and keeps up with the mainstream for authenticity in his writing, would be well versed...and his narrative in this blog offers clever insight into the idea of skewed perception.

He also cites data about redshift observation of clusters since the 50s that says that no rate of change has been resolved better than the 4th decimal place, and that more recent observations have data to the 6th decimal place but they are inconclusive and indicate a trend of deceleration.

Last contention and point of understanding. I think the problem here that may never be resolvable is that for our theories to really hold water, we need redshift data FROM the *perspective* of other clusters, and we can only use the redshift of those clusters in relation to their nearest neighbor. In practice Impossible!! The alternative is to ditch redshift as anything other than affirmation of expansion in general, and seek a better method of measuring the speed that individual clusters at distances are traveling from each other that is independent of our own skewed perspective. An absolute must. This requires data points collected over time, to determine rate of change. This is going to require patience.

We ought to muster that patience and go back to the drawing board. After all, no technology is going to get us to the edge of the observable universe to take pictures.

I invite anyone and everyone to discuss this and refute me. But I will be reading your replies with a critical eye for dogma. If any mainstream principle logically topples my assertions, and it doesn't require leaps of faith coupled with unsubstantiated assumptions, then you will have solved a riddle for me.

Share on other sites

Has a timescale of ~100 years been great enough for any variation in redshift due to cosmological expansion to have any noticeable effect?At the moment we have to accept that a lot of cosmology is guesswork.We cant get it in a lab and poke and prod it so its not surprising that the subject is largely a debate in progress.

BTW There seems to be (at least for me) too many reasons :doh:to believe that redshift is not a reliable measure of radial velocity for the question to have any relevancy.

Share on other sites

Has a timescale of ~100 years been great enough for any variation in redshift due to cosmological expansion to have any noticeable effect?At the moment we have to accept that a lot of cosmology is guesswork.We cant get it in a lab and poke and prod it so its not surprising that the subject is largely a debate in progress.

BTW There seems to be (at least for me) too many reasons :doh:to believe that redshift is not a reliable measure of radial velocity for the question to have any relevancy.

No less than 100 years isn't enough. but I disagree that we should accept guesswork when we are talking about one of the pinnacle of scientific questions. Well honestly I have to admit this. It may be one of the highest hanging fruits in science, but it is probably the least nutritious fruit (meaning that the answer is really only a quest of knowledge for knowledge's sake and doesn't further humanity) so as truly unimportant as the answer to our greater riddle is, it isn't truly important and imaginary guesswork is OK (I guess).

Hell no I don't agree. Knowledge is knowledge and if we are going to be aggressive about questioning assumptions in science we need to be absolutely critical of every minutia. I realize that this post doesn't disprove dark matter/energy or acceleration. But if it does warrant further thought it could:

1) save millions perhaps billions of dollars in wasted research and redirect it toward a more realistic theory

2) teach young scientists the value of critical thinking and questioning even peer reviewed mainstream science.

3) get us potentially on a different track about the origins of the universe itself and it's age. Expansion would still be indicated, and the big bang might be reinforced. But the big crunch as our ultimate fate, which makes the most sense, would be back on the table. Or other mechanisms might be sought that even get us back to a more or less steady state eternal universe, though the present evidence would certainly not point to that.

I don't accept the idea of all that guesswork. Not at all. There are too many things at stake, too much philosophy.

Share on other sites

WHR- you've raised very good questions, and the fact is that we have not been observing anywhere near long enough to provide the direct evidence that you require. The conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is an interpretation of the data from redshift of type Ia supernovae. This is important because this particular type of supernova is expected to have a fixed brightness, as the supernova occurs immediately once the white dwarf accretes enough mass. We can therefore determine the distance to the supernova based on relative brightness alone. Then, we compare the spectrum of the supernova to determine its velocity relative to us using redshift. What we find is that further galaxies containing type Ia supernova are receding from us slower than they would be if expansion was occurring at a constant rate.

In other words, we have not been observing long enough to witness accelerated expansion of one particular type Ia supernova. However, since light travels at a finite speed, we see more distant objects as they were further in the past. So we can, if our assumptions are correct, witness the change in expansion over time using multiple type Ia supernova.

I usually use a graph from hyperphysics to show the plot of type Ia supernova redshift over brightness, but that site seems to be down at the moment. I'll edit or add to this post with the appropriate graph once I find it.

EDIT: Here's a link to a PDF of the graph, still looking for an image I can imbed.

EDIT2: This is close to the specific graph I was looking for, though the inset makes it more cluttered than it needs to be.

Image source

Basically, what this shows is that galaxies containing type Ia supernova that are a great distance away have less redshift than would be expected if the rate of expansion were constant. Galaxies containing type Ia nearer to us have greater than expected redshift. To be honest, it took me a few months to fully wrap my head around the significance of this graph, so please, feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have. Bear in mind that the value for magnitude is opposite of what you'd expect, in that the lower the value, the brighter (and therefore nearer in type Ia supernova) the object.

Edited by JMJones0424
Share on other sites

Can I assume JMJones that you are one who also questions the assumptions of accelerated expansion? If the redshift is less for more distant 1a supernova than for closer ones, that would indicate deceleration in my mind but perhaps I'm not following. Thanks for the graph I will study it later.

Oh and more importantly, thank you for appreciating the thought process of my post. As I came up with these problems, I assumed that others may have asked this question (though I may have highlighted the paradox of the trains in a way that is useful!!) But I find it troublesome that I haven't found any authoritative discussions oT blogs that have actually brought it to light. That's a little bothersome.

Share on other sites

You can assume whatever you wish about me. I have no formal education in cosmology and what I've come to know is a result of a few years struggling to try to understand the posts of those that have the benefit of formal education. The matter is not at all intuitive, and this is a question that I, like you, have struggled with for quite some time. I'm going to do some work outside in my garden and try to think of a better way to explain the issue.

Also, I am going to petition the moderators to move this thread to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum, as you are not speculating at all. You seem to me to be asking worthwhile questions about current knowledge rather than proposing an alternative.

Share on other sites

You can assume whatever you wish about me. I have no formal education in cosmology and what I've come to know is a result of a few years struggling to try to understand the posts of those that have the benefit of formal education. The matter is not at all intuitive, and this is a question that I, like you, have struggled with for quite some time. I'm going to do some work outside in my garden and try to think of a better way to explain the issue.

Also, I am going to petition the moderators to move this thread to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum, as you are not speculating at all. You seem to me to be asking worthwhile questions about current knowledge rather than proposing an alternative.

I look forward to fruitful discussions later.

I guess the aspect of this that I find particularly important is essentially that the acceleration concept seems to be an extra puzzle piece in the pile of pieces that makes a solution impossible. Like having two fuel pumps in your car, one leading to nowhere and wasting half your fuel. Without a really logical irrefutable piece of evidence, it's a completely futile waste of energy to pursue the concept. IMHO

Share on other sites

Without a really logical irrefutable piece of evidence, it's a completely futile waste of energy to pursue the concept. IMHO

What do you consider irrefutable evidence? And if your not pursuing the concept, how do you get any evidence? You seem to have created a little Catch-22 here.

Here's some people who did pursue the concept. And their evidence. "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201

Edited by ACG52
Share on other sites

What do you consider irrefutable evidence? And if your not pursuing the concept, how do you get any evidence? You seem to have created a little Catch-22 here.

Here's some people who did pursue the concept. And their evidence. "Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201

With all due respect, this is not logical. If what you are saying is true, then I implore mainstream cosmology to explore all the speculation threads in this forum. Any idea proposed is to be explored.

Ok that may be an extreme example, but what I am saying is that clearly I have shown the paradox of the idea. I dare say that I've worded the puzzle in such a way as to show that is almost NONSENSICAL to consider expansion. It seems like a idea that had a lot of hot support way too prematurely and nobody slowed it down, and to reverse now would be a bit of an embarrassment.

I would suggest that if there is a fraction of merit in it, perhaps pursue it as a secondary model...if the logic of the paradox doesn't convince you otherwise. I have no problem with that. However I do have a problem with an illogical idea detracting from the more logical ones. As I said its like an extra fuel pump that is not connected to anything and wasting precious fuel.

Oh btw, you have not refuted my puzzle, you just linked to a journal piece. I will look at it when I get time, but if you can't explain how it refutes my assertion in your own words I don't know if it is worthwhile.

Share on other sites

With all due respect, this is not logical

I agree, you have set up an illogical situation. You really think that you've shown any paradox or problem with an expanding universe? All you've done is deny it, while demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the thing you're denying.

BTW, that's not a journal piece, that's the research paper announcing the accelerated expansion, along with their methodology and their data. In science, that's called evidence. So instead of refuting your assertion in words, I'm showing you the data.

That's what science is about, not a lot of hand waving.

Share on other sites

To specifically address AGC52's question "what evidence would be irrefutable"...

Unfortunately, I do not think that we have the technogy to detect with any accuracy in a time frame that is palpable for impatient human beings evidence for rate of change of redshift with any resolution that is acceptable or conclusive, so further study of red shift that is geared toward that goal (resolving rate of change of redshift) would be appropriate. But such study would bear fruit regardless of your pet theory of choice. It would resolve the puzzle of steady expansion and even possibly the possibility of deceleration.

In fact, the more I consider this, an overall tendency for steady state is not out of the question given the paradox. As I have demonstrated with my puzzle/paradox, the only redshift data that offers anything conclusive would be the redshift of nearby clusters. And by nearby I mean our next door neighbors, not the ones "3 blocks away". The skewing of our perception would become obvious very quickly. If we are not able to use redshift for anything of much value past a few neighbors, then I contend the movement of clusters in out little nook of the cosmos could be peculiar to our little area and not typical. Sort of like how the Earth has this very special, almost unconceivabley perfect and convenient relationship with the moon that keeps one side of the moon facing us, a perfect tilt to allow for seasons, and a perfect Goldielocks position in relation to the sun. So while our nearby clusters are very slightly drifting apart, clusters very distant may be slightly drifting together but the skewed redshift evidence hides it. Now I will admit that this goes into speculation, but it is just an example of why pursuit of "rate of change of redshift" is a worthwhile endeavor. It would uncover this puzzle.

I agree, you have set up an illogical situation. You really think that you've shown any paradox or problem with an expanding universe? All you've done is deny it, while demonstrating that you have no knowledge of the thing you're denying.

BTW, that's not a journal piece, that's the research paper announcing the accelerated expansion, along with their methodology and their data. In science, that's called evidence. So instead of refuting your assertion in words, I'm showing you the data.

That's what science is about, not a lot of hand waving.

A research paper is usually published in a peer reviewed journal when it is given credence. Therefore I would not parse words.

You have not addressed my paradox and instead pointed to data that clearly does not take into account rate of change of redshift. Unless you can refute this your reply will be dismissed.

Share on other sites

I see no puzzle and no paradox, other than something you've conjoured up, with nothing in the way of any evidence.

Share on other sites

Before I try to clarify my previous post, I'd like to propose that there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We are dealing with science, not mathematics. There is no such thing as proof here. The only truth in science that exists are observations, and even observations are subject to interpretation and refutation if there was a problem in making the observation.

The issue, as I understand it, is that the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is not readily apparent. I think it is obvious that redshift indicates that the universe is expanding. The rest of my post will be devoted to showing how redshift evidence indicates that said expansion is accelerating.

Let's start by imagining a situation where I am stationary and a supernova type Ia is receding at a fixed rate from me of 1 unit of distance per 1 unit of time. At t=0, the supernova is x distance away. At t=1, the object is x+1 distance away, at t=2, the object is x+2 distance away. The object can be accurately described as receding away from me at a fixed rate of 1distance/1time.

Now, I don't have the luxury of observing one type Ia supernova for a billion or so years, so let's say that I am observing many different type Ia supernovae receding from me. Given our assumptions on the uniqueness of type Ia supernova, we can say that when I observe their relative brightness, I can correlate that to their distance from me. Also, I can observe their spectra and use the redshift of their spectra to determine their relative velocity from me. Since the speed of light is finite, I can also correlate their distance from me to the time in which the light I am observing was emitted.

If the expansion of the universe were occurring at a fixed rate, I would expect a direct correlation between distance and redshift. If the expansion of the universe were gravity dominated, in that the expansion slows down over time due to the influence of gravity, I would expect redshift to be higher at farther distances (because farther equals a longer time ago). Instead, what the data shows, is that redshift is lower at farther distances and higher at closer distances than would be expected if acceleration were constant. This indicates that expansion is accelerating.

It should be noted that I have not come to this conclusion by observing one type Ia supernova. I am assuming that all type Ia supernova are equivalent in brightness due to the mechanics of their evolution. While there is no evidence that contradicts this assumption, it is an assumption none the less. Likewise, I am assuming that there is nothing that will substantially alter the light and spectra of far away supernovae that would corrupt my interpretation that far away supernovae are receding slower than they would if the expansion of the universe were constant. To date, there is no evidence that this assumption is incorrect. Provide evidence otherwise and win the Nobel prize.

Share on other sites

A research paper is usually published in a peer reviewed journal when it is given credence. Therefore I would not parse words.

Nowadays papers are prepublished and held on arxiv. The paper was also published in the Astrophysical Journal, Astron.J.116:1009-1038,1998 The primary author of that paper, Adam G Reiss, was given the Nobel Prize for it. So no, I'm not parsing words, this is THE research paper. So if your unwilling to accept the scientific evidence, unwilling to even look at it, there's really no way to convince you of anything.

So why bother?

Share on other sites

I see no puzzle and no paradox, other than something you've conjoured up, with nothing in the way of any evidence.

I am tremendously in awe that you can immediately grasp the consequences of observational data. I wish that I were able to do so as well. As it happens, I am not, nor does it appear to me that WHR is either. As such, it would be far more useful if you were to explain your position rather than just stating it as an obvious fact.

Share on other sites

AGC52, I am afraid you have not even expended any energy in careful consideration of the issue that I have summarized. I may not be a genius, nor am I a cosmologist, but I am a man of high intellect. I may play around with speculation on imaginative ideas just for the pleasure, but in this case I am not presenting imagination. I am presenting a paradox in the way the data has been modeled. It is seriously flawed because it uses skewed perception imbedded in the evidence. This skewed perception must be filtered and the evidence analyzed in the face of it. I am not in any doubt whatsoever that the concept had overlooked this. In fact, already after only a day of discussion, a Google search on "rate of change of redshift" brings this forum topic to within a page or two of the top Google hits. I challenge your very objectivity if you cannot see that rate of change of redshift would be an important dynamic to consider, and if this technicality has not been addressed, which is obvious by the results of a Google search, then it is conclusive that the need for such data has either been 1) neglected 2) not considered by oversight 3) considered but ignored due to laziness, embarrassment, or lack of technique but over investment in the current model. I hope the last one is not true because it would be a condemnable thing to neglect this important aspect intentionally or simply because we "can't yet".

Nowadays papers are prepublished and held on arxiv. The paper was also published in the Astrophysical Journal, Astron.J.116:1009-1038,1998 The primary author of that paper, Adam G Reiss, was given the Nobel Prize for it. So no, I'm not parsing words, this is THE research paper. So if your unwilling to accept the scientific evidence, unwilling to even look at it, there's really no way to convince you of anything.

So why bother?

THE research paper does not address the issue of rate of change of redshift so it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Oh BTW I specifically asked that anyone posting on this thread present evidence that contradicts the paradox with supporting evidence that rate of change of redshift has been filtered from the underlying data as to make the data faultless. You have failed to do so. Therefore, I really do not care if you are going to try to convince me. That is not your job anyway. If you wish to address the paradox however you are more than welcome to add to the discussion with such commentary.

Share on other sites

HOWEVER the train model is flawed and can't be properly used. The 3 galaxy cluster model is a 3 point model. The train is a 2 point model. For the train model to be proper, we must have 3 trains somehow interacting. That would be hard to imagine. We could have ourselves aboard a train moving at speed X, a train moving in the opposite direction at speed 2X, and another moving in the same direction as the second train at 4X But that can't fit because the observation of the second train with respect to the third train is not under the same observational conditions as our train moving at speed X in the opposite direction. The flaw is that both observed trains are moving in the same direction and we are moving in the opposite aboard our train. So that nifty Einsteinian concept of the two trains moving in opposite directions at the speed of light etc etc can't be applied.

So the solution to having a 3 point model would be to have our train stationary. Train 2 would be going speed X. We would need for train 3 to be traveling at speed 2X. Ok that fits. We have accelerated expansion. But wait, no we don't. Train 3 is accelerating with respect to train 2. Certainly train 3 will leave train 2 in the dust given enough time. And certainly from our perspective on stationary train one, we would see this. Yet, neither train is actually accelerating. Both trains are traveling at a constant speed. Let's say 50 mph and 100 mph. If both blew their whistle, the pitch for the 50 mph train would be higher than the 100 mph train. There would be a Doppler shift. Without question. But to claim acceleration, we would have to take measurements in intervals

and see if train 2 is now moving at 100 mph and train 3 is now moving at 200 mph. 200 and 400, 400 and 800 infinitum.

The problem with this model is that we are stationary. We are thinking geocentrically. We'd really prefer in our scientific minds a way to have all 3 trains moving simultaneously in a way that replicates the 2 train model.

You have a basic misunderstand of expansion, as evidenced in your op. You are saying how can all these things be moving in space when the velocity vectors don't add up. The point is expanson is not things moving through space, it is more space being created between all (non-gravitationally bound) objects. All objects, in all directions, between everything and everything else. Your train analogy is flawed because of this.

You've said that you're willing to accept that the universe is expanding, even though from your op it appears you don't know what that means. You've said that your real problem was with the acceleration of the expansion. I'd suggest that the root of your problem is with your misunderstanding of how expansion happens. I've given you the Nobel Prize winning paper on the acceleration. If youi're not willing to consider it as evidence, than as I've said, there's really nothing more to say.

Edited by ACG52
Share on other sites

You have a basic misunderstand of expansion, as evidenced in your op. You are saying how can all these things be moving in space when the velocity vectors don't add up. The point is expanson is not things moving through space, it is more space being created between all (non-gravitationally bound) objects. All objects, in all directions, between everything and everything else. Your train analogy is flawed because of this.

You've said that you're willing to accept that the universe is expanding, even though from your op it appears you don't know what that means. You've said that your real problem was with the acceleration of the expansion. I'd suggest that the root of your problem is with your misunderstanding of how expansion happens. I've given you the Nobel Prize winning paper on the acceleration. If youi're not willing to consider it as evidence, than as I've said, there's really nothing more to say.

Appeal to authority. Does not address my paradox. The problem is rate of change of acceleration. This is entirely in keeping with space being created between non gravitationally bound bodies. You are not addressing the issue and are apparently overestimating your own understanding of the issue.

Please specifically address the issue of rate of change of redshift with observational data that squares or accounts for it.

Share on other sites

Meh, ignore the troll. Have I explained the current data in such a way that it is understandable to you?

Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, the CORE problem that my paradox addresses is the reality that all space is expanding in all directions. This is why I've pointed out that a 3 train model of this expansion can't adequately address it. This is the conflict with the 2 train model of bodies accelerating away from each other and the 3 (or more) cluster model of raisin bread, elastic etc.

I hope you do not embarrass yourself by not having a grasp of this paradox.

Share on other sites

I've embarrassed myself more than once, not afraid to do so again. What observational data are you referring to?

Share on other sites

Meh, ignore the troll. Have I explained the current data in such a way that it is understandable to you?

Your explanation of type 1a supernovae is something that I've read about and seen documentaries touching upon. I do understand that they are good reliable bodies with theoretically predictable behavior from which observational data can be ascertained with a degree of confidence. I certainly do not disbelieve that we have observed this and I will further research available information. Thanks for the graph!!!! Also thank you for applying critical thought to the conundrum rather than appealing to authority.

I've embarrassed myself more than once, not afraid to do so again. What observational data are you referring to?

My apologies I was replying to AGC52 not you.

Share on other sites

It might be more better to use many point redshift change than to use some point redshift change in short period(with in 100 years) to explain the acceleration. The model which contains near Super cluster(old light) and far away Super cluster (very old light) would be more exact. Is it difficult to do so?

Edited by alpha2cen
Share on other sites

It might be more better to use many point redshift change than to use some point redshift change in short period(with in 100 years) to explain the acceleration. The model which contains near Super cluster(old light) and far away Super cluster (very old light) would be more exact. Is it difficult to do so?

Alpha2cen, I will leave your question to someone who has more knowledge about the issue of HOW the data is collected and analyzed in the context of rate of change, or how rate of change might be accounted for by various methods. I will concede that I do not have access to the equipment not the resources to conduct my own study...but perhaps when someone comes along who clearly recognizes the paradox and has the unbiased ability to address it, perhaps they can explain an answer to your question.

Share on other sites

Appeal to authority.

No, it's an appeal to research, which you are unwilling to look at.

Everything is moving away from everything else (in non gravitationally bound systems). The further apart two objects are, the more space is created between them, and so the faster they appear to receed from each other. From every observational point in the universe, everything is moving away from that point.

This is why I've pointed out that a 3 train model of this expansion can't adequately address it. This is the conflict with the 2 train model of bodies accelerating away from each other and the 3 (or more) cluster model of raisin bread, elastic etc.

There is no paradox. Your train model is flawed, as I've pointed out. You are still treating objects moving through space.

Create an account

Register a new account