Re: Red shift and homogeneity

Bjoern Feuerbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
> > 
> > "George Dishman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> [snip lots]
> 
> 
> > > I think you have judged the new position by measuring from the
> > > adjacent galaxy rather than from A. That error would explain a
> > > lot of the odd disagreements we have had recently.
> > 
> > I'm probably with you now, sans the instant accelleration which was
> > needed to get them to these different speeds at galaxy formation.
> 
> These "instant acceleration" didn't happened at galaxy formation, but
> much earlier: galaxies began to form only about 1 billion years after
> the BB.

Which ever way you cut it, the material, whether in the form of EMR or
common matter, somehow must have coalesced into galaxies with
differing velocities. George, Jeff and others have clearly shown how
they all have a similar separation from each other (per the graph
paper). However, the red shift shows that the further ones were
travelling faster when they were 'near here'. And that is the
implacable problem mating BB to red shift in this model.
> 
> 
> > > Anyway, the key point here is that the letters in the second
> > > row are equally spaced just as in the first so homogeneity
> > > has been maintained.
> > 
> > OK. I still can't shake why galaxies K L M N O which are expanding
> > away from P to the left, won't occupy the empty spaces.....
> 
> Because there is no empty space?

Pity we can't live to a billion years or so. In that time I would
expect to see galaxy groups collide somewhere, disproving for good
universal separation.
> 
> 
> > I think Sean has a good point- extra space is always required,
> > "outside" infinity, to fit expansion.
> 
> You do really think that the term "outside infinity" makes any sense?

As much as "expanding infinity"
> 
> 
> > After a little more thought on our graph paper, whereas any point
> > chosen can be shown to be a center, when several such are considered,
> > these "centers" still seem to indicate a "universal" center. (Sorry)
> 
> Pardon? Each point can be shown to be a center, and this implies to you
> that there is *one* "universal center"? Could you please explain how
> this reasoning works?

Blow up balloon: balloon has center. Blow up room full of balloons:
they squeeze each other apart from the center of the room. Other rooms
have the same, and the walls start pushing apart from the center of
the house: and all the neighbours are doing the
same................... Many individual centers, but STILL an
indicated center for all.............
> 
> 
> > > > The book "Mathematics and the Imagination". Does it consider the
> > > > difference between "imaginary", as in sq root -1, and the
> > > > "unimaginable", as in 1/0. There is a vast difference, but I strongly
> > > > suspect that many mathematicians have entered an "Alice in
> > > > Wonderland", where they confuse the two, and actually consider the
> > > > "imaginary" to be "reality".
> > >
> > > 1/0 is infinite, not "unimaginable".
> > 
> > Other posters say "undefined".
> 
> Right, and that's better than "infinite" (one could also argue that it
> is "- infinite").
> 
> 
> > Is that mathspeak for "don't know"?
> 
> No. It is mathspeak for "one can't assign consistenly a value to it".

Can't find the symbol, but it's 8 on its side!
> 
> 
> > > As for root(-1), I use it regularly. I work in electronics
> > > and electrical currents are often complex numbers. Are you
> > > familiar with Ohm's Law? Current = voltage / resistance
> > 
> > I use a mirror. It is very handy for shaving, but the picture is an
> > illusion, and has no reality (like root (-1))
> 
> How do you know that root(-1) has no reality?

The same way that I know a wolf isn't going to eat 5 of my 3 sheep
> 
> Do you claim, too, that root(2) has no reality? After all, no one has
> ever seen a line with that length...

I have! Some where along any line is the correct point- unfortunately
there is a bit more joined on, and I can't determine the exact point
of splicing
> 
> 
> [snip stuff about SNs]
> 
> 
> > > Now look back at figure 1(b). Note that although the shapes
> > > are roughly the same, the red curves are a bit 'fatter' than
> > > the blue ones. The red curves are taken from a diferent
> > > survey that was able to see more distant events. In fact the
> > > red and blue cuves are very similar _except_ that the red ones
> > > seem to have the time stretched. The 50% levels are about 15
> > > days before the peak and 18 days after the peak so the peak
> > > lasts 33 days.
> > >
> > > Now the question is why should this happen. The conventional
> > > explanation is based on relativity but you don't like that
> > > so I'll express it another way.
> > >
> > > If you were sitting nearby at a fixed distance from the SN,
> > > you would see the 'rest system' curve. The reason we see it
> > > stretched is that the whole thing is moving away from us at
> > > about half the speed of light for w=1.5. In the 22 days that
> > > the peak lasted, the SN moved away from us by 11 light days.
> > > As a result the light emitted at the end of the peak (the 50%
> > > point on the way down) took 11 days longer to reach us than
> > > the light from the start of the peak (50% on the way up).
> > >
> > > I could say a lot more about this but it's probably best to
> > > stop there and see what you think so far.
> > >
> > > best regards
> > > George
> > >
> > > p.s. The reason this is bad for Tired Light is that if the
> > > red-shift is caused by some form of decay of the energy of
> > > the photon and the source is not moving, the duration of the
> > > light curve should be the same for all SNe of this type or
> > > randomly spread but not so dependent in any way on the
> > > red-shift.
> > 
> > Interesting and supportive of BB at first read. Recent posts re SNe's
> > suggest that there is is a lot of speculation about their mechanics
> > (neutron stars etc).
> 
> Well, that's right - their mechanisms still not fully understood. But
> nevertheless, there is lots of data on how their light curves behave.
> 
> 
> > Also the apparent limit of 10 of our sun's mass as a trigger for Sns
> > would doom any idea of a singularity, or "Big Crunch". Even single
> > galaxies mightn't be able to collapse.
> 
> Sorry? What are you talking about? What has any mass limit on SNs (and I
> don't know what mass limit you are talking about here) to do with
> collapsing galaxies or the "Big Crunch"?
> 
> 
> 
> > Project:
> > Explode a nuclear device at a good distance in space, and see if the
> > instant flash generated arrives here as a line on a moving photo plate
> > (indicating a DIFFERENCE in light speed from one event)
> 
> What has this to do with the BB?

If you can't see that variable c would change our view of the
universe, you shouldn't be here
> 
> 
> > (Timidly I might add that it wouldn't supprise me to see the line in
> > the form of a spectrum)
> 
> Why?

(sigh)- because different colours (wave lengths) may have different
velocities: at least under some circumstances
> 
> 
> Bye,
> Bjoern

Jim G