tmdarkmatter

Ok, in that case there is no proof of a big bang, dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe. There is not even a clear proof that all of these galaxies we see are actually anywhere close to what we see. The light can also be bent to such an extent that the light of our own milky way is coming back from billions of different angles to us, simulating faraway galaxies. So we should stop speculating until we can travel to these galaxies. Don´t forget that we do not see stars, we only see some light and this light is bent, deviated, manipulated in a sense we still don´t know. If 7 minutes of sun gravity can bend the light by 1.75 arc-sec, I am wondering by how much the light should be bent when travelling through the universe.

And what are these answers?

What kind of answers should I expect for the questions "Where does dark energy come from?" or "Is it possible that the redshift of the furthest galaxies is not related to expansion?"

Not really, but thank you anyway

But what if they cannot answer basic questions?

I define it as "the environment"

Oh, I forgot that I must somehow show you that I am smart. But I prefer to be stupid and say: "No, I have no idea." Because that would mean that I still have the opportunity to learn. Something I am not seeing very often in current human science. Please do not get offended. I just want people to relax a little.

There is no real evidence of its existance, there is only the redshift effect humanity is still not understanding and the background light that is confusing them. Radiation that is deviated from its original course should always lose part of its energy, and light coming from galaxies far away were deviated thousands of times for millions or billions of years. There is no "straight" light.

Why should there be dark energy? Why would a static universe be unstable? "By the way, for those who are not familiar with human science, GR means that silly theory that space-time is bent." "Oh, that one with the balls and the hole?" "Yeah, they still have not discovered yet how gravity works."

Why are we again turning away from the universe and its explanation? Who cares who I am or if I believe or not. That does not modify reality. Why should the universe expand?

If you prefer, just change it to -9999 and I won´t care. If there can be no incredulity, there is no science, only fundamentalism. Real science also does not need to be persuasive, because numbers and facts should convince on their own.

Instead of some negative points I prefer some intelligent answers lol And it´s funny to think that space expands just because.

So we are using this model because "it is less complicated"? What about finding the truth? lol Of course what is most important for us religious humans is having a universe with z>1 so there is always a mystery for us. How would you confirm the existence of z>1 if you never measured that in any of the billion galaxies? Why would you try to explain something that still does not exist? Why not try to explain some supernatural event? If space is "nothing", how can "nothing" "expand"? And you still did not answer what makes this movement special in order to distinguish it from the "moving away" movement. This is still ONLY an increase of the distance in a certain time in both versions.

This is interesting. How would you define the difference between two points separating from each other because of their movements and two points separating from each other because of expansion? What exactly would be the difference? According to maths, there would be no difference at all, because it is just some Δx/t. Maths does not care where the Δx comes from. What I want to say is that before speculating with the movements of the furthest galaxies and expansion of the universe, we should first try to figure out what kind of redshift or blueshift we can find in those objects surrounding us, so we can define what the effects of different movements on redshift should be, before we can confirm if galaxies are indeed moving away from us or if their redshift has another cause (like gravity). Creating special rules for galaxies that are "not gravitationally bound" would only lead to false theories. By the way, how should a galaxy not be gravitationally bound if the force of gravity is infinite?

So can be measure the blue shift of Andromeda from an extragalactic point in space, not beeing on the Milky Way carousel? This means the movement of Andromeda on its own axis, not our movement around the center of the milky way (?) Andromeda has its own tangential movement, so we should see one half of Andromeda more redshifted than the other half. By the way, this red- or blueshift should even be much more intense in the center of the galaxies, where the movements are much faster. If the center of the Andromeda galaxy moves at a speed of 2000 km/s and our position is not in a 90 degree angle to the surface of the galactic disk, we should be able to observe this movement, especially with Andromeda, where we are definitely not in an angle of 90 degree (just check a picture of Andromeda). Now if you say that there is no detectable blueshift/redshift because of this movement, than the universe is also not expanding, because the cause of redshift would not be the movement of galaxies/light sources.

So are scientists having in mind these "pedestrian speeds" when calculating the redshift of Andromeda or not?

Well, I guess that if the "pedestrian speeds" should be ignored, I think I can make a joke about ignoring the movements of Andromeda too, because we are moving much faster around the center of the galaxy than Andromeda is moving into our direction.

If we can ignore these pedestrian speeds, shouldn't we also ignore the blueshift of Andromeda? This blueshift is way too low for us to take it into account. All this drama of Andromeda hitting the milky way is just fake news, because the blueshift is just too low and is completely negligible.

The point is that scientists are ignoring this completely. Do we know our velocity? lol

Why are you still mixing up this motion with expansion? My question was: why do we not detect/ignore the redshifting of near objects caused by the movements of our solar system around the center of the milky way? Half of the sky should be more blueshifted and the other half should be more redshifted only because of this motion. Lol, these "negative points" will not improve our understanding of the universe.

So because it is a tangential motion we are allowed to ignored it, that´s interesting. Because even in a tangential motion the linear speed can be between 0 and 1 according to the angle, multiplied by the 222 km/s, but that of course does not matter. I have already explained many times how this is related to expansion, but of course only I should be confused. So we are actually riding a carousel towards Andromeda but some smart and "not confused" guys prefer to interpret that as Andromeda beeing on a collision course with the milky way while the motion of the carousel of 222 km/s can definitely be ignored. Very nice, I love modern science! It all makes a lot of sense. I think that in about 80 million years, Andromeda will be redshifted when it is behind us, so the next civilization with telescopes will consider that Andromeda was always moving away from us. lol

If the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way at a speed of 222 km/s and the galaxy Andromeda is coming closer at a speed of 120 km/s, how can we say that the movement around the milky way should be safely ignored while the movement of Andromeda is very important? Something is wrong here. Are these effects being ignored on purpose to sustain the current model of the universe? If course, if we cannot detect a redshift caused by movements within our galaxy, why should we suppose that movements of galaxies far away should be responsible for their redshift?

I think you did not understand. I am saying that if redshift is not caused by expansion of the universe, we would have to use these other methods (again). One question here: are these effects simply ignored because we cannot measure them or are we indeed able to measure them? If we would be able to measure these local effects, why would we ignore them?

I like to ask the AI about these topics because the AI has no prejudice: @Clyde so gravity exists because of curvature of space-time and the only proof of space-time curvature is gravity? Clyde AI — 10/19/2023 9:29 PM that's correct. gravity is the result of space-time curvature, and the evidence for space-time curvature is the existence of gravity. it's a bit of a circular relationship. Circular relationship? Lol

Interesting that if this was an actual quote from "someone" it has a certain value, but if I am writing it, it must be flawed. Interesting that this is also only based on red shift as well as all the distances of the objects you are mentioning. Red shift is the main tool of this Lambda-CDM model so if we remove that tool, we would have to start from the beginning again. We would have to observe the furthest galaxies for millions of years to see if they get smaller (if they are moving away from us). A question about this paper is, why are they not taking into account the rotation movement of earth? In the morning, when the observer is moving in the direction of the sun, there should be more blue shift and in the evening, when the observer is moving away from the sun, there should be more red shift of the light coming from the sun in this experiment. Or what am I doing wrong? Please tell me. Did they do all their measurements exactly at 12 p.m.? On the other hand, why would the moon have a gravitational force of zero? 2009.10558.pdf (arxiv.org) Even the AI understands what I mean: @Clyde should the rotation movement on earth have an effect on the measurement of the red shifting of galaxies? Yes, the rotation movement of Earth can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the Doppler effect. @Clyde should the movement of earth around the sun have an effect on the measurement ofr the redshifting of galaxies? yes, the movement of Earth around the Sun can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the changing relative velocity between Earth and the observed galaxies. @Clyde should the movement of the solar system around the center of the milky way have an effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies? yes, the movement of the solar system around the center of the Milky Way can have a small effect on the measurement of the redshifting of galaxies due to the changing relative velocity between our solar system and the observed galaxies.