Spyman

The observed rate of change of velocity is CONSTANT. EDIT: Feel I need to add: constant over distance and not over time. You need to check your math, if acceleration is uniform and initial speed is zero then displacement=a*t2/2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration If a=1m/s2 then G would be located at L=0.5m when T=1s, at L=2.0m when T=2s and at L=4.5m when T=3s.

Each green dot represent a speed with redshift 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 5.00, 6.00, 7.00, 8.00 relative us. Increasing velocity with distance gives a straight line if the relation is proportional. "In mathematics, two variable quantities are proportional if one of them is always the product of the other and a constant quantity, called the coefficient of proportionality or proportionality constant. In other words, x and y are proportional if the ratio is constant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

I already did, look at the green dots in my graph at post #41 on page 3.

Justin don't get confused by my and Michels discussion, Michel like to explore other possibilities and right now I think he is trying to make a model which would simulate what we see but without space expansion. The current scientific consensus is the graph I posted in my post #41 on top of page 3. Michel, I don't understand what your curve is supposed to show, you have not plotted the locations where we see the objects emitt the light from and it does not have a proportional recessing speed to distance. What does the plotted locations represent and why change the 10, 20 & 30 numbers? If it should fit with what we observe and without expanding space, then G2 with a distance of 1 billion lightyears should be plotted at the time of 1 billion years, G2 of 3 billion lightyears at the time of 3 billion years and G3 of 6 billion lightyears at the time of 6 billion years. The you have to choose on one slope for the proportion of distance versus speed, if you for example pick the one for G3 then recessing speed for G3 could be 3/20 but that would also mean that recessing speed for G2 would be 2/20 and for G4 it would be 6/20.

The redshift or receding speed does not alter the speed of the image towards Earth, it doesn't matter what redshift an object has, if it sends out light from an distance of 2 billion lightyears then it will take 2 billion years for the image to reach us.

Now we have returned to post #44 where I asked you to explain why light makes a detour... If space don't expand then T and D are proportional to each other and as such all objects in diagram nr.2 should be on a line, just like in nr.1. Without expanding space, then if G1 emitted light at D=1 billion lightyears and G2 emitted light at D=2 billion lightyears, nevermind their receding speed, it would take 1 billion years for light from G1 to reach us and 2 billion years for light from G2 to reach us. In you #36 diagram you have placed G2 on a 1/1 relation and G3 on a 3/2 relation and G4 on a 6/3 relation, but if lightspeed is constant then they all should have the same relation and be placed on a straight line. So what I don't understand and want you to explain thoroughly is why your galaxies don't have equal proportional relation for T and D.

You are going in circles Michel, discussion is back at my post #48.

If space don't expand and speed of light is constant then distance and time is also proportional to each other.

AFAIK, if speed increases proportional to distance then there is only one slope following the relation between them. (Look at the blue line in the latest picture you posted, one single slope for all objects.)

Yes, you are correct direction is not important, but that was not what I was trying to say. We are only observing one single slope and it's angle is the Hubble constant. "Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

No, I am trying to understand your post #36. If space is not expanding and G2 is smack in the middle between G1 and G3, then how can there be different slopes?

Nice picture Michel. If space and the rubber band did not expand then the ant's and light's paths would be a straight line, you need to explain why the light from G3 in your post #36 makes a detour around G2 on it's path towards G1, in a non expanding space the light would follow a straight path and the only possibility for it to pass by G2 would be if G2 was in the middle of it.

The image we see would be 4 billion years old but while it took 4 billion years for light to travel 4 billion lightyears through space, the object (with redshift 0.369) must have been closer when it emitted the light if space expanded during the time light was moving towards us (like around 3.41 billion lightyears) and it must also be further away now when we recieve the light than what it was when it emitted it (like around 4.67 billion lightyears). Imagine that you have a rubber band with a length of 1 meter and a wheel with a circumference of 10 centimeters, so that the length of the band equals 10 rotations with the wheel. If someone simultaneously and slowly streaches the band to the double length of 2 meter while you measure the rope by rolling the wheel on it, you will find that it takes more than 10 rotations and less than 20 from one end to the other. That depends on the rate of expansion which changes with both distance and time. When space expands the border where expansion equals lightspeed (the Hubble shell/sphere) also moves further out and with time lightrays that where right outside unable to reach us finds themselves inside where space expands slower than lightspeed, so they can now proceed to us. Let's imagine a rubber band again, it has a 4 meter start length (space), it is fixed to the ground in one end and tied to the rear car bumber in the other end. The car goes away with 4 meters per second (4 times lightspeed) and on the middle is a very fast ant placed running towards the safety at the fixed ground location with 1 meters per second (lightspeed). If we make a mark on the road beneath the ant the band above the mark will recede with half the speed of the car in the beginning since it is half way between the car and the ground, but after one second the band is streached to 8 meters, making the band above the mark at 2 meters to recede with 2/8*4 = 1 meters per second, and after three seconds the band is streached to 16 meters, making the band above the mark at 2 meters to recede with 2/16*4 = 1/2 meters per second and so on... Now the ant won't get it that easy since it is not fixed to the ground like the mark and will be brought back by the expanding band, but nevertheless the same principle will let the ant escape from the band down to safety. Lets do a simple test where we first we move the car, then streach the band and finally let the ant move along the band, repeat until finished: At 0s the band is 400 cm long and the is placed at the middle at 200 cm -> ant is located at 200/400 = 50% At 1s the band is 800 cm ant is at 50% = 400 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 300 cm -> new location is 300/800 = 38% At 2s the band is 1200 cm ant is at 38% = 456 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 356 cm -> new location is 356/1200 = 30% At 3s the band is 1600 cm ant is at 30% = 480 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 380 cm -> new location is 380/1600 = 24% At 4s the band is 2000 cm ant is at 24% = 480 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 386 cm -> new location is 380/2000 = 19% At 5s the band is 2400 cm ant is at 19% = 456 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 356 cm -> new location is 356/2400 = 15% At 6s the band is 2800 cm ant is at 15% = 420 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 320 cm -> new location is 320/2800 = 12% At 7s the band is 3200 cm ant is at 12% = 384 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 284 cm -> new location is 284/3200 = 9% At 8s the band is 3600 cm ant is at 9% = 324 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 224 cm -> new location is 224/3600 = 7% At 9s the band is 4000 cm ant is at 7% = 280 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 180 cm -> new location is 180/4000 = 5% At 10s the band is 4400 cm ant is at 5% = 220 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 120 cm -> new location is 120/4400 = 3% At 11s the band is 4800 cm ant is at 3% = 144 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location 44 cm -> new location is 44/4800 = 1% At 12s the band is 5200 cm ant is at 1% = 52 cm where ant moves 100 cm to location -48 cm -> it has managed leave the rubber band. However if the car where to accelerate at an increasing rate it could make the band above the mark to recede at or even increase it's speed above the ants and continually force the ant further and further away. If the rate of expansion is increasing fast enough the Hubble sphere will shrink, making our view darker and darker. What we observe today are a range of redshifts from zero to a current maximum of 8.6 (UDFy-38135539) and further on we see the cosmic microwave background radiation with a redshift of 1089. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Highest_redshifts I used the Cosmos Calculator with the values: Omega=0.27 Lambda=0.73 Hubble=71 and Redshift= 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00, 5.00, 6.00, 7.00, 8.00 to obtain the data in the graph. X-axis is age of the Universe in billion years and Y-axis is distance in billion lightyears. Red dots indicates the distance the light we recieve today was emitted from, green dots is the distance light have travelled through space to reach us from the red dots and blue dots are the estimated distance to where the objects are located today.

Without theories and mathematical models we are only observing different redshifts, there are no distances nor any durations to focus on without them. Even if you want to discuss how far away they appear to be due to the light travel time, you will need some kind of interpretation of the measured redshift. The duration for light to travel the distance is not the true distance to the objects, for instance an object with redshift 3.5 and another with redshift 0.78 might seem to be around 12 billion lightyears and 7 billion lightyears distant, but they where both around 5 billion lightyears away from us when they emitted the light we see now. The distance you speak of that is a "direct function of the distance through the constancy of Speed Of Light" is the distance light has traveled through space to reach us, but it is NOT the actual distance to the object, neither when the light was emitted nor when the light is recieved. Also we might as well be observing: T0.---------T9.--------T17.-------T24.------T30.-----T35.----T39.---T42.--T44.-T45 G1 sssssssss G2 ssssssss G3 sssssss G4 ssssss G5 sssss G6 ssss G7 sss G8 ss G9 s G10 The distance between different objects in any outward random direction are not related to expansion nor acceleration and only shows how they randomly happen to have been located when they emitted the light we see today. G10 is still the farthets galaxy cluster with 45s between us, but as already said that are not their true distance from us, G10 might very well have been closer than G6 was when they individuality emitted the light we see today. Expansion and its accelaration tells us how fast galaxies are receding from each other relative their distance to us but not how far away apart they actually are as that depends on where they started out. We are today observing all those galaxies, all the way from G2 and out to G12, with different redshifts. The math in the standard model tells us how far away they where and when they emitted the light, the duration and distance for light travel and how far away from us they are supposed to be today. We can't see where G3 is today but we can't see how old the light is either nor how far it has traveled to reach us. We observe the redshift which is calculated by a model to show us these things and it reveals them all, you can't cherry pick one type of value and say that it is what we see and claim that we can't see the other values. If you trust in the model then all values are true and if the model fails you can't trust any value at all. The further the distance to the object we are observing, the older the image we are recieving, but the relation between expansion and distance is something different, the rate of expansion is NOT constant over this timespan we can observe.

The expansion rate is thought to be the same everywhere on very large scales, in zapatos's example we only see one duration of time so we can't determine if there is an shift in rate or not, and it is supposed to show the real distances between galaxies and not how distant they appear to be from our viewpoint. AFAIK cosmological expansion is imagined like how far distant galaxies are located as if we could measure their true distance instantly over time and the rate of expansion changes over time and is constant relative distance. Further more according to current Big Bang theory the expansion was very fast at the initial beginning and then rapidly decreased, later on and roughly during the first half of our Universe's life time the expansion was slowly deccelerating and then the rate turned sign and the Universe's expansion started to slowly accelerate, so the full picture can't be viewed as easily as you wish. Following standard models we have never seen any object emitting light from a distance further than ~6 billion lightyears from us, any object we see that it took light less than ~10 billion years to travel to us, was farther and farther away from us but still closer than 6 billion lightyears when it emitted the light reaching us now, and any object we see that it took light more than ~10 billion years to travel to us, was closer and closer to us from 6 billion lightyears when it emitted the light reaching us now. The most distant objects we have ever recieved light from is now thought to be ~45 billion lightyears away, but it was only 0.04 billion lightyears from us when it emitted the light we see today. The G12 galaxy cluster in the very long past might seem to be 12 billion lightyears away but it was only ~4.8 billion lightyears distant when it emitted the light we see now and it is currently located ~23.4 billion lightyears from us. Trying to extend on zapatos's example including timestamps and for different expansions: Simple Expansion non accelerating s +s +s +s (rate=1) T1 - G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 T3 - G1 sss G2 sss G3 sss G4 sss G5 sss G6 sss G7 sss G8 sss G9 sss G10 sss G11 sss G12 T4 - G1 ssss G2 ssss G3 ssss G4 ssss G5 ssss G6 ssss G7 ssss G8 ssss G9 ssss G10 ssss G11 ssss G12 Accelerating Expansion at constant rate s +s +ss +sss (rate=+1) T1 - G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 T3 - G1 ssss G2 ssss G3 ssss G4 ssss G5 ssss G6 ssss G7 ssss G8 ssss G9 ssss G10 ssss G11 ssss G12 T4 - G1 sssssss G2 sssssss G3 sssssss G4 sssssss G5 sssssss G6 sssssss G7 sssssss G8 sssssss G9 sssssss G10 sssssss G11 sssssss G12 Accelerating Expansion at accelerating rate s +s +sss +ssssss (rate=+1 +2 +3) T1 - G1 s G2 s G3 s G4 s G5 s G6 s G7 s G8 s G9 s G10 s G11 s G12 T2 - G1 ss G2 ss G3 ss G4 ss G5 ss G6 ss G7 ss G8 ss G9 ss G10 ss G11 ss G12 T3 - G1 sssss G2 sssss G3 sssss G4 sssss G5 sssss G6 sssss G7 sssss G8 sssss G9 sssss G10 sssss G11 sssss G12 T4 - G1 sssssssssss G2 sssssssssss G3 sssssssssss G4 sssssssssss G5 sssssssssss G6 sssssssssss G7 sssssssssss G8 sssssssssss G9 ... (Disclaimer: I don't qualify as an expert either.)

I don't think it is possible to simply "extend the time lapse" or to do an "advanced search" past a certain date because there is a distinct border between different softwares.

Google: Michel123456 2010 site:www.scienceforums.net - change the year and add other search words to home in on your thread.

There is no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Some Cranks seems to have a very intense desire to be famous too.

FYI: It is the little yellow triangle marked "Report" in the lower left corner of each post.

For the record it was me who gave you the first negative reputation in that post and not CaptainPanic. (I wanted to show dislike of your *leet* attitude in that specific post.) Sorry for the Off Topic, but ANYONE can give votes and I didn't intend someone else to take the blame for my vote.

I think at least one of your two accounts, G Anthony & Gary Anthony Kent, should be eliminated. 9. Registering more than one account to yourself is not permitted without administrative approval. "Sockpuppet" accounts (those registered with the intent of using them to spread the original member's ideas, or for other malicious purposes) will be banned on sight, as well as those registered to evade a ban. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

I am not aware of any scientifically verified evidence of V-shaped gravity able to cause invisibility or confirmed observations of dwarf stars with temps just above absolute zero.

Strangers on Internet and comments on YouTube does NOT carry the same reliability as NASA experts.