Memoirs » Timeline »
Cosmology Discussions

“There seems to be lots of electrical phenomenon in the cosmos. What is the astronomy take on electricity?”

“It has been determined to be mostly bull, and promulgated by a band of zealots who are totally ignorant of basic physics. You will undoubtedly hear shortly from such uninformed zealots. Stay tuned, I think I hear one coming”

8/14/2008
From our distance, most things are frozen in time. Almost everything in the universe that can be perceived takes place on time scales much longer than a human lifetime.
However there are fast events out there. Supernova, the resultant expanding dust shells, etc. Many individual stars move fast enough to detect. But you need high powered telescopes and instruments to see the changes. Mant are not visible in light wavelengths, but are in infrared, radio or X-ray wavelengths.

8/14/2008
Galaxies swirl around in clusters, sometimes hitting their neighbours or dragging their neighbouring galaxies apart, depending on how they interact gravitationally. They are stirring each other up. But these objects are very large and move relatively slowly and these interactions can take millions or billions of years.
As we look out into the universe, we see a “snapshot” of all these interactions, as the light from them reaches us. The universe looks to be a very dynamic place, but dynamic over very large scales and durations.
We cannot “see” it rotating or moving towards us.

Kicklabuka 8/14/2008
Please explain: What do you mean, see it rotating? Do we take a picture of a galaxy one year, then again the next year and look for changes?

8/14/2008
Even over aperiod of hundreds of years, there is no change in galaxies. At those distances the changes are too small to measure (at least as far as rotation is concerened) We know they are rotating because of the additional red and blue shift from the approaching and receding sides of the galaxies, but the positional chamges are too small to measure, in fact individual stars can not even be seen. It’s just too far away.

Kicklabuka 8/14/2008
Is it always one side blue and one side red? This is done via microwaves

8/15/2008
Redshift can be detected in any spectrum.

8/15/2008
Precisely correct. The entire measured spectra are shifted higher or lower from the baseline. The degree to which it is shifted, higher or lower (e.g. left or right with respect to the baseline, equating to red- or blue-shifted), determines how much

8/16/2008
I don’t think the microwave region of the spectum is any more relevant to deriving motion than other wavelengths

What about quasars? Aren’t quasars found to be very high redshifted and lying nearby to parent galaxies? 8/16/2008

8/16/2008
Yes, there are a few observations that seem to contradict the mainstream theory, but they are by no means definitive. The quasar that lies 8 arcseconds from the centre of NGC 7319 does look as if it might be in that galaxy, but it might not. There are theories that quasars are the stripped cores of devoured galaxies that have been “spat out” at high velocity, and thus would be close to, but have a very different redshift from, their parent galaxy. Or that they might be a great distance away but shining through a less dense part of the galaxy and exciting gases within it. So the jury is still out on the nature of quasars. The key point here is that, even if quasars turn out not to be very distant as previously thought, this just precludes us from using them as a measure of distance.

Kicklabuka 8/18/2008
It’s precisely the problem when the chicken comes before the egg. Somebody says expansion of the universe and then the ONLY things that are recorded are those that agree with it. Things that don’t are just overlooked. With all due respect, it means that something else is responsible for red-shift.

8/18/2008
Have you considered that the universe might be expanding, and galaxies that are moving with that expansion show cosmological redshift. If quasars are ejected at high speeds from the remnants of consumed galaxies, they might indeed have much higher redshifts than galaxies that are close to them, due to the extra relativistic doppler shift from their velocity and that Doppler redshift would be added to their cosmological redshifts.
Or perhaps the quasars aren’t close to those galaxies at all.

Kicklabuka 8/16/2008
“The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?” http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

8/16/2008
There is nothing quantitative in that article that provides evidence the quasar is in front of NGC 7319. Galaxies, when viewed face on, are not opaque… we can see through them. Not to mention they are looking at a processed 2d image and using the age old excuse “it looks like”.

There is absolutely no conclusive, convincing or even compelling evidence for intrisic redshift. 8/16/2008

Except that it explains the observed phenomenon without adding new properties of matter, and new laws which don’t apply on earth. 8/18/2008

8/18/2008
It certainly does, but is it the correct explanation? Anyone can explain an observed phenomena, but the intepretation of what your senses gather is not always correct. And, it would seem here, that interpreting what is seen on a processed 2d image can be misleading.

8/18/2008
I’m not so sure it does. How would intrinsic redshift explain the observed time-dilation of SN1a supernovae? Or the increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of over z=1.6? Both observations are entirely consistent with an expanding universe.
If the redshifts of these objects were due to a different cause, we need a mechanism by which Type 1a supernovae seem to have speeded up the duration of their explosions during the history of the universe and then slowed down again more recently, and a mechanism by which galaxies over a certain distance away (as measured by their apparent magnitude) seem to retain a similar structure to brighter galaxies, but get larger and larger in size the the more distant they are.
Explain the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the increase in the apparent diameter of distant galaxies. The angular diameter distance of the galaxies, over the range of magnitudes, is a bit of a giveaway really.
So if redshift is wrong, and the universe is not expanding, then we have some very large looking, dim and ghostly high redshift galaxies that must be closer to us than some very small looking, bright and low redshift galaxies and structurally, the galaxies look similar to each other

If you mark off metres on the ground, into the distance… 1,2,3,4,5… then stretch the ground to double its original size, the first mark will now be 2 metres away, the second 4, etc. So 1,2,3,4,5 doubles to 2,4,6,8,10. Say it only took 1 second to stretch the ground.
So the first mark moved 1 metre in 1 second. It went from 1 to 2 metres away, in 1 second. The fifth mark, however, moved 5 metres in 1 second – it went from 5 to 10 metres away. The more distant mark receded at 5 times the speed of a closer one, but all the ground expanded at a constant rate. The mark is not moving over the ground, the ground is stretching around it. A mark that was 300,000 km away would have receded to 600,000 km, meaning it receded at 300,000 km/s – the speed of light.
This is a very simple model to illustrate how the expanding universe causes distant galaxies to have the apparent recession speed faster than light, due to the same concept as above. Those galaxies are not moving through the universe faster than light though. What is happening is that the way the universe expands simply makes it look like they are receding faster than light. They would see our galaxy (or what was here before, billions of years ago) as receding from them faster than light too, but we know we aren’t travelling through space faster than light, don’t we?

Kicklabuka 9/2/2008
I’m working on your question about “aparent time-dialation” with “distant” supernova, Speed. Bear with me. But let me reiterate, YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT EXPANSION.

9/2/2008
Don’t forget the angular diameter – redshift distance relationship of galaxies too. Once you understand this concept, it is hard to argue against redshift showing us that the universe is expanding, unless you also introduce new physics. You need a mechanism by which the dimmest galaxies are larger or closer than much brighter ones

And it’s not about me being wrong, as I simply explain the current mainstream view in cosmology.

kicklabuka 9/2/2008 [s9149]
All in all: Charge in motion. Spin is a common effect of the interaction between electric and their resultant magnetic fields. These conditions make stars of the same size more luminous or less luminous.
The size of these galaxies in the sky increases with redshift until the dimmest galaxies are almost twice the size of closer, a lot brighter galaxies. Charged objects that are spinning create magnetic field lines that make a doughnut shape around the charge. If it’s spinning clockwise, those magnetic field lines go out the top and turn back down the sides. If there are lots of charged objects spinning, those magnetic field lines would find a happy medium where they can share similar forces from other stars’ electric fields. Systems become galaxies and stronger field lines make tigher packed systems. I believe the question of why dimmer galaxies are bigger is a no brainer.

9/3/2008
If your explanation is to hold, you need to explain why your electrical effects stopped affecting the size of galaxies 9 billion years ago, why we see the increasing angular size of galaxies only before that time.

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008 [s9149]
Things for you change around 1 because that’s called a parabola and your math makes it happen there.
At best, it’s “fun with parabolas.”

9/5/2008
As for angular diameter, it is a simple set of observations. We found through observation that the dimmer the galaxy, the higher the redshift and the smaller the apparent angular size of the galaxy. But then we found that as galaxies get really dim and highly redshifted, the apparent angular size gets larger again. These are the observed relationships between the galaxies we see. Those “parabolas” are the averaged curves that best fit all the observations. Simple.

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008 [s9149]
your observations have built-in multipliers, do they not? You can’t guess the angular size until you have already guessed the distance, right?

9/5/2008
The multiplier you refer to is the scale factor of the universe since emission. All the observations will, of course, make sense only when considered in the context of the scale factor. Without it, we have to account for all sorts of strange phenomena like, for instance, galaxies in the early universe being of a similar structure but much larger (in absolute size) than galaxies are today, and decreasing in absolute size only for a certain length of time, and supernovae lasting for shorter and shorter durations as time progresses.
We do not have to guess the apparent angular diameter, as it is apparent, and that is what we are talking about – the size we see these objects as (we do, however, have to guess the absolute angular diameter). But if dimness and size are an indicator of distance at emission, why are the dimmest galaxies larger than much brighter ones?
Do you actually understand what z represents?

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008
I am under the impression that it represents the wavelength difference between what you see and what you expect to see from the hydrogen line, divided by the expected hydrogen line wavelength. This gives you z right?
Would you list all of the places that Z is used and in their formulas? You’re right. What you say makes me think z has become something much much more

9/5/2008
Well, of course you are correct that z represents shift in an objects spectrum, but as you correctly suspect it has become something much more. The mainstream view is that cosmological redshift is caused by the change in the scale factor of the universe, the amount the universe has expanded, during the time that the light was travelling. Our other observations tie into this scale factor too, assuming that cosmological redshift represents expansion.

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008
Thank you for helping to explain the angular diameter measurement. The size we see these objects as. I’m guessing you mean aparent is the number of arc seconds that the object takes to pass a fixed (to earth) point in a telescope. So from arc angle, how do you get arc length? You need a distance to the object.

9/5/2008
Yup, that’s right, you need a distance. A combination of apparent luminosity, redshift and angular size, based on the cosmological model that best fits the largest range of observations with the least error.

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008
The least error if we assume the universe is expanding. If we don’t assume that, then these direct observations are all we know.

9/5/2008
Yes, quite correct. But our direct observations show us supernovae with increasing durations, the further back in time we look…….. These redshifts, if not due to some form of actual or apparent recession, if due instead to “tired light”, still need to explain the time-dilation of supernovae and the increase in apparent angular size of the galaxies with the least luminosity (and correspondingly, the highest redshifts). Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics. We have to be careful in which context this is used. Expansion is consistent with General Relativity and doesn’t require new physics to describe it. Accelerating expansion, on the other hand, does!

Kicklabuka 9/5/2008
But, “The further back in time,” you mean dim, you mean redshifted. Time is part of the assumption,

9/6/2008
We have to make some assumptions, don’t we? Otherwise we simply end up saying “there’s things out there”.

Kicklabuka 9/6/2008
NO ASSUMPTIONS. If the basics are wrong, assumptions after them are also wrong

9/6/2008
consider this – we know the luminosity of the Sun, from a distance of around 8 light-minutes on Earth. We have measured the Suns luminosity over various distances – we know how big it is, how bright it is and how far away it is. This allows us to find distances to other stars of the same type as the Sun. The Sun is a common type of star.

Kicklabuka 9/7/2008
Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes. The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.
or do you still think it’s a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?
Everything we know about the stars is about to change.

9/7/2008
Ahhh, a true drinker of the Kool-Aid.

9/9/2008
As you have started another thread on this subject, acknowledging that the composition of the Sun has little to do with why we think the universe is expanding, do you have any other objections to expansion then? Or can we put this thread to rest now?

The composition of the Sun has little to do with why we think the universe is expanding, do you have any other objections to expansion then? Or can we put this thread to rest now? 9/9/2008

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
Yes, I still object.

9/9/2008
We have shown how the time-dilation of supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship imply expansion.

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
You have shown that mathmatically linked variables have linked graphs.

We KNOW how bright the Sun is. The underlying reason behind its luminosity will NOT affect how bright we see it, or other stars, although it may explain why they have that luminosity. Whatever we discover about the structure of the Sun has no bearing on the relationship between the luminosity of stars, they will still have the same relationship. So how will any of this prove that the universe is not expanding? How will it suddenly change the overall picture to a non-expanding universe? 9/10/2008

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
I think the stars are connected by sharing magnetic field lines. For the sun, this zone extends beyond pluto. Birkland currents would cause these stars to revolve with respect to each other. –9/10/2008

Now that we know the solar system was created by a supernova explosion ~5Gy ago, there must be two types of stars. Those that have undergone a supernova event, and those that have not. I’d really like to discuss this a lot. I don’t know if there’s enough information to determine critical conditions, because it is difficult to agree on the basics.

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
It will show the electrical interactions of the charged shells of the structure, rotating. It will show the interaction between stars as well, and the interaction between size of galaxies and their luminosities. It all comes down to understanding such a close-by thing as the sun.

9/10/2008
a certain very dim and highly redshifted dimness we find the size starts getting larger again. This is consistent with an expanding universe

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
And the interaction between the stars to cause these size variations will be used to figure out actual size, and thereby, actual distance. All we’ve got are light received per second, shift in the hydrogen line, and arc angle

I think the stars are connected by sharing magnetic field lines. For the sun, this zone extends beyond pluto. Birkland currents would cause these stars to revolve with respect to each other. –9/10/2008

Now that we know the solar system was created by a supernova explosion ~5Gy ago, there must be two types of stars. Those that have undergone a supernova event, and those that have not. I’d really like to discuss this a lot. I don’t know if there’s enough information to determine critical conditions, because it is difficult to agree on the basics. –9/10/2008

9/12/2008
We here on Earth, orbiting the Sun, orbiting our Milky-Way galaxy, are receding faster than the speed of light from those distant galaxies, just as those distant galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light from us.

Anonymous 9/14/2008
Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics.
We have to be careful in which context this is used. Expansion is consistent with General Relativity and doesn’t require new physics to describe it. Accelerating expansion, on the other hand, does!

Kicklabuka 9/15/2008
On a hunch, please draw the tolman graph with emperical data for ONLY the lamda where Z=1 through Z=>7That is, lamda on the x axis and erg/(cm^2 x second) ONly for when Z=1 through >7

Anonymous 9/15/2008
Who are you talking to?
Anonymous 9/15/2008
I think to himself

Anonymous 9/16/2008
But does anyone know what he is talking about?
What this might have to do with expansion of the universe, red shift, general relativity or the price of eggs in China is a mystery to me.
I think I know what to do about the intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, and Fourier series. But I have no idea how he intends that such knowledge be applied.

Anonymous 9/16/2008
I think this is a fair assessment. KickLaBuka came into the “Expanding Universe” thread, asking questions about the evidence that the universe is expanding. He seemed to be claiming that he had developed his own solution for increasing redshift that did not require an expanding universe, a solution that didn’t require unknown forces. We pointed out that redshift is not the only evidence for an expanding universe and went on to explain some other kinds of data that support expansion – the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship. I asked if his solution could account for the other data that supports the expansion view.

Anonymous 9/17/2008
I have no idea what the connection with [nuclides] or tolman excercises/graphs might be (or what a tolman exercise or graph is). I’m not quite sure what the problem is, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical disciplines that he mentioned, with which I am quite familiar, are not the heart of the problem.

Anonymous 9/17/2008
He is referring to the Tolman Surface Brightness Test but the connection with [nuclides] has lost me.


HomeConceptualization

Comments are closed.