Spyman

But we don't know the initial conditions at time zero in the Big Bang. We can only observe and measure conditions shortly after the Big Bang and when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation we see today was emitted ~14 billion years ago, space between the emitter and us was already expanding with more than 56 times lightspeed. (The CMBR has a redshift of z=1089.)

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about the Big Bang theory, it has further links to expansion and other related science. The mainstream though is that the Universe expanded very very rapidly already at the initial moment of the Big Bang. For instance the emitting locations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, that is the oldest remnant of the Big Bang that we can observe, was receding away from us with speeds greater than 56 times the speed of light when it emitted those photons that we recieve today. The most distant object we have observed is a small and compact galaxy named UDFj-39546284, which has a preliminary redshift of 11.9 that indicates that it was receding away from us with around 4 times lightspeed 13 billion years ago when it emitted the light that reaches us now. Our standard model predict that the light we observe from it today was emitted from a distance of 2.5 billion lightyears and that the expansion has brought it away to a distance of more than 32 billion lightyears where it now recedes with slightly above 2 times lightspeed. Gravity has fought against expansion and managed to cause its rate to slow down for billions of years, but roughly after half the age of the Universe the rate of the expansion started to speed up again. The sad implication is that the Universe will end very diluted, black and cold. We are observing distant objects in the whole range from zero billion years to 13 billion years old and we have independent methods to find out both the light travel distance and the receding speed of the emitting object. With standard candles we can estimate how much space light has traversed to reach us and with cosmological redshift we can measure how fast the emitting object was receding from us at that time. By comparing this data we can make models of the expansion and when we find that objects is much further out than expected with a slowing down expansion then we know that the expansion is not only still occuring but also accelerating. The 2011 Nobel prize was awarded for the 1998 years discovery from observations of distant supernovae that the expansion is accelerating since around 5 billion years ago. Here is a great article from 1998 about the discovery in Science Magazine: Cosmic Motion Revealed

If you ONLY consider the doppler effect then yes. But I think it has to be noted that when discussing objects in the "sky" and in the context of your latest threads on the subject, that there are other effects that also can cause a frequency shift. When talking about very distant objects, then cosmological redshift have a much larger impact on the observed shift than relativistic doppler, because galaxies normally move with speeds that are a fraction of light speed while the expansion brings them away with multiples of light speed.

Hi Anilkumar, long time no seeing! I think individuals can misuse the system but the community as a whole are able to counter this. For instance when I find a post with a negative vote it doesn't seem to deserve I can vote positive on it to undo one unfair negative vote. Since we in the community are many and we can give much more positive votes than negative, any alone individual trying to cast unfair votes will normally get outvoted by the community as a whole. Also to consider is that the staff are able to see who votes what and can take action if needed. (BTW, I think you mixed my quote with Michel's.)

I video demonstration is not considered experimental proof and as such I don't think you will draw much scientific attention with it.

And did you take my advice and checked Wikipedia before asking? Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveâparticle_duality

Why don't you do the math from the Wikipedia page about Doppler like I did in my post #7, and show us the result?

Wrong, shortly after the Big Bang event the expansion was extremely high and far away objects was receding with many multiples of the speed of light. In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Is LaTeX working properly? If it does, then how does one preview the formula before submitting? EDIT: Testing [math]1+1=2[/math] [latex]1+1=2[/latex] Conclusion -> Both tags seems to work after submitting post, but I don't know how to preview before posting.

First I would like to point out that in the mainstream view the expansion of the Universe does not have constant acceleration. The expansion had a very high rate at the time of the Big Bang and then slowed down due to gravity for around the first half of its age and then started to accelerate in the last half of its lifetime. The Hubble constant is thus only constant over space and varies during time. We can still discuss an hypothetical universe that has an expansion with constant acceleration. But if the expansion is scalar like in the theory of Relativity there is a very important difference from objects accelerating away from each other through space instead of space expanding between them. Imagine that you have a rubber band and a small wheel, it takes 10 turns of the wheel to travel from one side of the band to the other when it is relaxed and 20 turns when it is expanded, but if the band is streching from relaxed to expanded state during the time while the wheel is rotating from one side to the other, then the wheel rotations will measure a third distance which is how long distance it had to travel along the band from one end to the other. Likewise if a photon was emitted from a distance of about 4 billion lightyears and that galaxy is now around 26 billion lightyears distant due to expansion, but it took 12 billion years for the photon to reach us, so the photon only propagated 12 billion lightyears through space, because the photon didn't wait until the expansion had finished but moved simultaneously during the expansion and covered distances before it had fully expanded. If space was not expanding and the galaxy was instead accelerating away from us through space then it would only take 4 billion years for the photon to reach us from an emitting distance of 4 billion lightyears apart, independent of the speed and acceleration of the observed galaxy itself. A constant acceleration of the expansion also has a border where the rate of expansion is faster than the speed of light, there will be a shrinking event horizon preventing photons from objects beyond this distance to forever be unable to reach us. Together with the age limit of the Universe that creates a growing border allowing light from greater distances to reach us as time passes, we will be severely limited in how far we can observe.

Good luck with finding a gravity free environment to experiment in.

In physical cosmology, the term peculiar velocity (or peculiar motion) refers to the components of a receding galaxy's velocity that cannot be explained by Hubble's law. According to Hubble, and as verified by many astronomers, a galaxy is receding from us at a speed proportional to its distance. The relationship between speed and distance would be exact in the absence of other effects. Galaxies are not distributed evenly throughout observable space, but typically found in groups or clusters, ranging in size from fewer than a dozen to several thousands. All these nearby galaxies have a gravitational effect, to the extent that the original galaxy can have a velocity of over 1,000 km/s in an apparently random direction. This velocity will therefore add, or subtract, from the radial velocity that one would expect from Hubble's law. The main consequence is that, in determining the distance of a single galaxy, a possible error must be assumed. This error becomes smaller, relative to the total speed, as the distance increases. A more accurate estimate can be made by taking the average velocity of a group of galaxies: the peculiar velocities, assumed to be essentially random, will cancel each other, leaving a much more accurate measurement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology

On the home page down at the bottom right, there is a link named: ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules. EDIT: I see now that it seems to be on the bottom of all pages.

I can still see all jpg pictures in your posts with IE8 in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70266-redshift/

Wikipedia is usually a good place to start out and find some basic understanding. Figure 4. Expected differential phase shift between light traveling the longitudinal versus the transverse arms of the Michelson–Morley apparatus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonâMorley_experiment

I am sorry alpha2cen, but I don't understand your calculations, pictures and question. Further more, this thread is not the correct place to ask questions from another thread. I suggest you start fresh in a new thread for your question with a more detailed explanation.

I don't think there is any intention to prevent us from telling who we voted what for and why, if we want to share it.

Wrong, Albert Einstein died at the age of 76 in the year 1955 and the nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of an accelerated expansion in 1998 which clearly shows that the notation of dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe IS something that HAS surpassed Einstein. On 17 April 1955, Albert Einstein experienced internal bleeding caused by the rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, which had previously been reinforced surgically by Dr. Rudolph Nissen in 1948. He took the draft of a speech he was preparing for a television appearance commemorating the State of Israel's seventh anniversary with him to the hospital, but he did not live long enough to complete it. Einstein refused surgery, saying: "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share, it is time to go. I will do it elegantly." He died in Princeton Hospital early the next morning at the age of 76, having continued to work until near the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Death The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative, so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time. In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since around redshift of z~0.5. The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess for the 1998 discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe Wrong again, a cosmological constant in Einstein's equation could very well power an accelerated expansion. In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) is equivalent to an energy density in otherwise empty space. It was originally proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging. However, a number of observations including the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 have revived the cosmological constant, and the current standard model of cosmology includes this term. The cosmological constant Λ appears in Einstein's modified field equation in the form of where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum). The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly moved onto the right-hand side of the equation, and defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant". A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe, as observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant In any case when ignoring your obviously lack of knowledge or intentionally false descriptions above, the supporters of an expanding universe has quite a lot of observational evidence in their favor: Observational evidence Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are: the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous). the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point"). Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include: Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point. In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales. The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle. The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is strong and direct observational evidence for metric expansion. Taken together, these phenomena overwhelmingly support models that rely on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the mediocrity principle. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence

I am not an expert but I don't think so. Interactions by nearby stars might disturb orbits of bodies in the Oort cloud and cause bombardment on the protoplanets but not likely clearing the disk between them. Protoplanets are thought to form by accreting more and more of the material in their neighborhood by collisions and then the final purging of other planetesimals is done gravitationally by the protoplanets themselves. It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk. Through accretion (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction. These concentrations become ever denser until they collapse inward under gravity to form protoplanets. After a planet reaches a diameter larger than the Earth's moon, it begins to accumulate an extended atmosphere, greatly increasing the capture rate of the planetesimals by means of atmospheric drag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation A planet (from Ancient Greek αστήρ πλανήτης (astēr planētēs), meaning "wandering star") is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet "Clearing the neighbourhood of its orbit" is a criterion for a celestial body to be considered a planet in the Solar System. This was one of the three criteria adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in its 2006 definition of planet. /../ The phrase refers to an orbiting body (a planet or protoplanet) "sweeping out" its orbital region over time, by gravitationally interacting with smaller bodies nearby. Over many orbital cycles, a large body will tend to cause small bodies either to accrete with it, or to be disturbed to another orbit, or to be captured either as a satellite or into a resonant orbit. As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or other bodies governed by its own gravitational influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleared_the_neighbourhood

Stars and their planets are formed together from large clouds of matter that collapse into a swirling disc. The star forms at the core and the planets by accreating matter in the disc, as such planets are normally formed already in orbit around their star. But during this process it is possible that some protobodies could get ejected from their birth system and then later on get gravitationally captured by a another star or planet they encounter. The Solar System formed 4.568 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud. This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and probably birthed several stars. As is typical of molecular clouds, this one consisted mostly of hydrogen, with some helium, and small amounts of heavier elements fused by previous generations of stars. As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula, collapsed, conservation of angular momentum caused it to rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc. As the contracting nebula rotated faster, it began to flatten into a protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU and a hot, dense protostar at the centre. The planets formed by accretion from this disc, in which dust and gas gravitationally attracted each other, coalescing to form ever larger bodies. Hundreds of protoplanets may have existed in the early Solar System, but they either merged or were destroyed, leaving the planets, dwarf planets, and leftover minor bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Formation_and_evolution

You don't have to be sorry, dark energy is well inside what's considered accepted mainstream cosmology. "In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass–energy of the universe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Is it intended for profiles of banned users to no longer be viewable?

The largest parts of a big rocket is the fuel tanks. Lower speed will certainly reduce stress on the structure and eventually you will also reach space but slower speed means burning fuel for a much longer duration, more fuel equals a bigger tank, which will need even more fuel to lift. Saturn V diagram from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

I am not an expert but AFAIK there is no connection between the constancy for the speed of light and dark matter. What dark matter constitutes of is an unsolved physics problem that major efforts are put into solving, but it is NOT something MAGIC. In the simplest of all explanations cold dark matter is materia that is cold and dark and why would cold and dark matter have more influence on the constancy for the speed of light than warm or bright matter? (Granted there are differences between baryonic and nonbaryonic matter and dark matter could consist of some new exotic type of matter or could hypothetically be something entirely else.) Science don't know why there is a maximum speed of light or any reasons for the value it has. The constancy for the speed of light is an inherent property of the Universe and questions of why the Universe exists and have those properties is probably better suited for the philosofy or religion sections. According to current knowledge, (the theory of relativity), photons always propagate locally with the speed of light through vacuum. Dark matter is thought to interact through gravity and possibly weakly with electromagnetic radiation. Gravity bends light but doesn't slow it down. My advice would be to make your own 'theory' similar to how people are used to view it in movies and common books because then they will be more likely to accept your idea, so read up on the ideas behind in famous movies and books and mold your own version from there. This Wikipedia article has a list of several well known sci-fi stories and their made up technologies to travel faster than light: Hyperspace is a method of traveling sometimes used in science fiction. It is typically described as an alternative region of space co-existing with our own universe which may be entered using an energy field or other device. Travel in hyperspace is frequently depicted as faster-than-light travel in normal space. Astronomical distances and the impossibility of faster-than-light travel pose a challenge to most science-fiction authors. They can be dealt with in several ways: accept them as such (hibernation, slow boats, generation ships), find a way to move faster than light (warp drive), "fold" space to achieve instantaneous translation (e.g. the Dune universe's Holtzman effect), access some sort of shortcut (wormholes), or sidestep the problem in an alternate space: hyperspace. Hyperspace is sometimes used to enable and explain faster than light (FTL) travel in science fiction stories where FTL is necessary for interstellar travel or intergalactic travel. Spacecraft able to use hyperspace for FTL travel are sometimes said to have a hyperdrive. Detailed descriptions of the mechanisms of hyperspace travel are often provided in stories using the plot device, sometimes incorporating some actual physics such as relativity or string theory in order to create the illusion of a seemingly plausible explanation. Hyperspace travel is nevertheless a fictional technology. http://en.wikipedia....science_fiction

There is NO negative in swansont's modnote and I can't see that he made any remarks at all regarding his opinion of dark matter. YOU have the choice of making a new thread in speculations to discuss your own personal idea and resolution for the dark matter phenomenon, the possibility and opportunity of starting new threads is something POSITIVE. However your attempt to hijack this thread and distort it into a discussion about your idea is negative and against the rules: 5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. 10.Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking. ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules can be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules If anything NASA has verified that the phenomenon of 'dark matter' is real and not speculation, it IS something we observe. "Dark matter came to the attention of astrophysicists due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain; such as stars, gas and dust." /../ "Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Even if dark matter should turn out to be something else than matter, the effect it has on ordinary matter is still not speculations. (But right now the mainstream science consensus is that dark matter consists of matter.) "According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle." /../ "Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, several alternative theories have been proposed to try to explain the anomalies for which dark matter is intended to account." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter Which clearly make your statements below a personal idea that is not yet accepted by mainstream science. "I had found that there is no need for dark matter to support this high velocity." "I have even made a calculation which should explain this phenomenon." So WHY is it to much to ask from you to start a new thread, if you want to discuss your idea?